Waitrose food store proposal
Do you have views on the inclusion of a Waitrose food store within the proposed redevelopment of St Johns Close?
Do you have views on the inclusion of a Waitrose food store within the proposed redevelopment of St Johns Close?
January 6th, 2010 at 11:09 pm
If we have Waitrose, we won’t need Tesco. A small village does not need 2 supermarkets.
January 8th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
A poorly thought out application. The area around the proposed development is already grid locked. One shudders to think what would happen if the development went ahead.
If by some chance it does go ahead the notion of Knowle as a quiet village would go forever.
January 8th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
If the Dorridge Sainsburys development is passed by Solihull Planners I don’t see how they will be able to turn down Waitrose’s application for Knowle. We do not need any further supermarket developments in Knowle or Dorridge and certainly not of this size. Our roads are already overloaded and neither village will adequately manage the parking requirements.
January 10th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
I don’t object to a little competition for Tesco and a choice for people that another supermarket will bring, but the scale of this development way too large for the local area, especially considering the Sainsburys at Dorridge will be quite sufficient for the ‘current’ local population.
I have also heard that M & S are interested in the area.
When we have the supermarkets and the infrastructure, then I guess the housing estates will follow.
January 11th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
I did not receive the leaflet and many of us who live near to me directly opposite the bungalows on the other side of the Green also were not given leaflets, the bungalows are homes that a lot of older people live in and which I presume would be demolished.
They would be forced out of their homes.
And I do not want the people who live in these bungalows forced to leave their homes many of which have been adapted for their lifestyle.
Homes many have lived in many years and so ideal and convenient for them - shopping wise and the church and Post Office.
I do not want the lovely view I have spoilt by a monstrosity of a supermarket even if they say it will be small.
It seems this is a way the Council will get much needed work on the car parks and Village Hall in the village done by letting Waitrose and Kimberley to get their hands on this land.
At no cost to themselves and probably better off by monies received for public land.
The road will be busy over there day and night with large delivery trucks.
It is bad enough at present with several lorries we have at present delivering to the One Stop.
The road is not wide enough for more large delivery traffic and any proposal to widen the road and possibly losing part of the green and its beautiful trees would be sheer and utter wanton destruction.
Of the block of 4 homes I live in only 1 was given a leaflet.
I have rung the number to ask why they seem to have been ’selective’ about the leaflet drop as so many people I have spoken have also not received the leaflet either.
I am disabled and will not be able to attend but my upstairs neighbour will take a letter over from me, voicing my strong and total disapproval for these plans.
Also there is a small area in red behind the Sorting Office and Tesco.
What are the proposals for this area other then yet more “Waitrose ” parking.
Knowle is a beautiful village with many old and greatly treasured buildings.
I cannot see how creating more parking and building a modern supermarket shop will improve the area.
Let the Council improve the areas themselves.
Yes there are some areas in the village needing improving, such as the car parks but I feel it is the Councils job not a development company’s job, possibly Kimberley/Waitrose paying the Council loads of money for the land they propose to use.
Yes upgrade them but not at the loss of them from the Council to Waitrose/Kimberley.)
We have several small independent shops, including 2 butchers for example who would probably lose their custom and be forced to close.
The greengrocers on the High Street closed but are planing to reopen. What impact will this proposal have on their plans?
With the existing Tesco and One Stop and the other small independent shops we have enough food shops in the village.
Also the Village Hall would be lost for a time, but rebuilt, OK it needs improving but not at the whims of Waitrose/Kimberley getting their modern probable monstrosity of a shop into our lovely village.
During the rebuild it would leave the village short of that Village Hall building.
And parking during the build will become a nightmare.
The Village Hall is well used and could leave some groups and societies short of meeting rooms.
WE DO NOT NEED MORE FOOD SHOPS.
I totally am against this plan in every aspect.
Kimberley Developments sell the Bowling Green back to the village.
And leave us alone.
January 11th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
How does building a further supermarket enhance the centre of Knowle? Take a look at the High Street now on a Saturday morning – it shows a busy and thriving community, where people meet and chat as they shop at a range of local shops.
This proposal for a ’small’ Waitrose seems anything BUT small – and I certainly don’t think that the developers would build it for the good of the village if there was little in it for them.
The main ‘problem’ at the moment for the village is parking and congestion. If this proposal were to go ahead, I believe we would see much reduced parking, whatever assurances are given. This would badly affect nearby residential roads and it is likely that there would be an end to the free short-tem parking.
Whatever, the parking problem combined with a whole new supermarket, will hardly help the local shops - which are presently a thriving mix of independents and which give the village centre its CHARACTER.
January 16th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
An excellent proposal, I think the creation of an extra 120 parking spaces, a high quality supermarket and a new village Hall has to be encouraged. I am fortunate that I don’t use a car for my shopping, so it’s great that this proposal is in the centre of Knowle, where local people can access it on foot, rather than always having to drive to a quality supermarket out of town. I have always been concerned that the Tesco store has no prospect of improving it’s situation, because of it’s confined position. This will not only provide an excellent store, but also keep local people shopping in Knowle. Saturday afternoon in Knowle is very quiet. I’m sure this development will help our local shops survive. Over the years I have lived in Knowle so many shops have closed. We now have 21 eating venues, 4 nail treatment shops, several hairdressers and several ladies shops. The town has become very unattractive for many shoppers. This is a great opportunity!
January 16th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
Sorry, I think I got too creative with the number of extra parking spaces created. It is in fact 52, not 120. I don’t know where I got that!!
January 16th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
This is a welcome redevelopment of an area of the village that quite frankly is an unsightly mess at the present time. The proposed new buildings have character and should blend in well. The village will benefit from having the new village hall and new landscaped areas.
The problems with the inaccessibility of the present car parks and the consequent stress this causes will be overcome by the new layout of the car parks.
While they are at it, they should redevelop the ugly St John’s shopping precint and some of the other poor developments of the 50s/60s/70s that blight our high street.
We hear so often these days of the demise of English villages and we are so fortunate to live in a thriving village. Being able to walk into the village to do most of our shopping is a real luxury. But if villages are to thrive they do need to develop.
January 16th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
I’m sitting here watching from the sidelines as I now live in a proper village not too many miles from Knowle. From someone who went to school in Knowle in the 70’s and all my family who originated from Knowle since the 1800’s, it beggars belief that there is still a demand to put up more unbelievably bad designed buildings that haven’t even been thought through properly. The question is do the residents of Knowle still want a village atmosphere where good individual local shops serve local people or do they want a large corporation like Waitrose that only serves to feed the greed of share holders probably living in London.
Keeping our local shops is a reflection of our identity of who we are and where we are from, building another supermarket will not only have a knock on effect for the local trader in Knowle but it will add us to another huge list of towns and cities that are looking more and more identical with each other rather than as a separate identity.
Identity is the key and Knowle needs to keep it for the next generation and years to come.
January 17th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
I agree with that 2 supermarkets are too many for the village and more concerened that the car parks are to be amalgamated in to one big car park.
Will there be any room left for other shops or pedestrians by the time they are finished? No doubt the council will be seduced by being able to add new housing to help meet the targets.
Are there plans to see drawings of the plans???
January 18th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
As a Chartered Surveyor of 40 years experience I have been involved in a number of redevelopment schemes. I attended the public consultation and found it lacking in any depth of detail, which the developers excused by saying it was due to it being an early consultation. I have concerns about the whole proposal starting off with:
1. Kimberley Developments were entirely anonymous in all their material. It is wrong to offer consultation and not let people know where you are from. When asked they said they were ”from London”, and declined to say where. The attitude was that I should be impressed, but I think it wrong not to include details of the company. Any public consultation I have seen has always let people know who the developer is. When I checked the company on Google they have had an interesting history, such as is available through that source. Which is not much, which is my concern.
2. Traffic–they have not dealt with this in enough detail. I spoke to Mr Lowe from the highway consultants Turner Lowe who was helpful. The net increase of parking spaces is only around 55 (the figure he told me) and when you account for spaces being taken up by non-shoppers, let alone the expected increase in shopping traffic for the new store I doubt the increase will be enough. The parking will be 4 hour extent which gives office workers plenty of time to park, then move their car at lunchtime, thus taking up shoppers’ spaces. The through route will, he said, still be along the side of St Johns Close nearest to the existing Village Hall, but it will not look like it when all the new paving, and traffic calming measures are in place. Their brochure appears to show traffic from Station Road turning left around St J C but he said this was incorrect. Their proposal is to provide lay-bys, and parallel parking to deal with residents’ cars, thus, in effect, widening the Close from Lodge Road through to Station Road.When asked what they proposed on the corner adjacent to the sheltered accommodation, currently always a hazard, he had no answer. He said that he had wanted to see a net increase of 180 in parking spaces, and was disappointed that his recommendation had been watered down. That tells its own story about the parking provision!
3. The road running towards the Post Office is to be widened to allow delivery vehicles to go to the service area at the back of the store. The impact on the Close will be enormous. How can large lorries get around the already tight road, and parked cars in St J C? On the face of it it will cause chaos, and major impacts on the residents of St J C.
4. There was mention of a DTZ Study for SMBC of shopping provision in the SMBC area. I have not read that, but I thought their exhibition should have drawn conclusions from that study in relation to the Waitrose proposal, which I do not think it did. As a resident of Knowle I am concerned about a massive impact on the already struggling shops on the High Street.Waitrose will sell all the goods currently sold by, for instance, New Covent Garden, and the Bread Shop, and pull shoppers off the High Street. Competition is fine, but there has to be a balance.
4. I agree that the area of St Johns Close needs a tidy up, but overall I cannot support this current proposal which, taken in the round, will have too great an impact in traffic terms on the area, and the store will be too great a size for a ‘neighbourhood store’. See the excellent Knowle Society letter to SMBC on the proposed Dorridge store for an explanation of Planning Guidance Notes issued by HMG.
All Knowle residents should take a concerned interest in this proposal, whichever way you view it as it would have a major effect on the village.
Tony Ridgway.
January 18th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Whilst I would like Waitrose in Knowle I, like many others, do not shop in Tesco in Knowle as, since its last ‘refurbishment’ it has less choice of products, poor layout, queues and, if I can help it, I simply will not shop there. Like other comments on these pages, we should have a choice. However, it would have been simpler if Waitrose had simply identified a relevant site for a store, rather than this supposed redevelopment of Knowle we are now faced with. There are a few potential sites which are on the main road, not in the centre of the village and would not inconvenience so many people - the Royal British legion site and the old Lidgates abbatoir site.
I spoke to the architect of these proposals on Saturday who advised me that they will put a planning application in on the current proposal. Why, then, did they ask us to give our comments?
This affects me significantly as I am likely to be looking out over a car park - so how does this affect the value of my property? What about the people who live in the old people’s cottages who have been offered money to move into new purpose-built apartments? What if they don’t want to move? Proposal is flawed in its current format and let’s hope that common-sense prevails and the whole idea is revisited.
January 19th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
In my capacity as a marketing and management consultant I have to review the efficacy and strength of many proposals. Regardless of the pro or anti supermarket arguments there are a number of significant flaws in the plans laid out. The fact that there are so many indicates the plans have been ill thought out and may hide more flaws which cannot be seen from the exhibition (Drainage, waste management, etc.).
Car Parking.
From the plans and aerial photo there is a very small net increase in spaces if at all. (The dimensions of these spaces appear to be the minimum and not sufficient for the modern large family car.) The store building itself takes many spaces and the layout takes away previously on-road parking places. (The photo indicates widening of the road to accommodate parking bays at The Grove Road end of St John’s Close whilst this may well be a benefit, this does not create extra car parking spaces.) The new community housing will need to use some of the new car parking spaces as will those using the garages at the rear of the Nat West Bank which seem to have been built on and labelled potential shop unit. A large number of parking spaces have been taken from The Red Lion Pub both will have to use some of the new spaces. Given that the store is to add to the community and provide extra work this minimal net increase in car parking spaces will be exceeded by staff and customers. Knowle is already ill served with parking facilities - these plans will make it a great deal worse.
Logistics
The road leading from Knowle High Street through to St John’s Close is very narrow even where is becomes two lanes. Large vehicles have to mount the pavement. Currently such a requirement is once or twice a week but a supermarket needs at least two or three main deliveries a day! This will create a bottle neck for traffic coming from The High Street creating severe congestion problems on the High Street. This already happens very occasionally – it will be a regular issue with these plans. The Post Office, Waitrose, The Vaults and customers for Waitrose and Tesco plus others will all be using this road.
Access to One Stop’s delivery yard and the service road to the back of Eric Lyons seem to be blocked off by car parking spaces. Deliveries will start to regularly take place from The High Street. The Red Lion will have to take deliveries from the road as there will be no alternative exit route for patrons parked in their car park.
St John’s Close
The implication from the aerial photo is that through traffic between Station Road and Lodge Road via St John’s Close will now be directed to the opposite side of the village green to the development. The aerial Photo implies there is plenty of room for two cars to pass and parked cars in this area. For this to be reality the road it will need widening taking land off the Village Green.
General Observation.
The aerial photo used is straight from Google’s satellite image of the area with the road map superimposed upon it. This image is well over 2 years old and taken very early in the morning probably a Sunday. (The car parks being empty, the Royal Mail vans parked up and the sun direction.) Thus all the cars normally parked around St John’s Close are not shown. It is quite possible that this proposal has been drafted without a qualitative site visit (other than for the shop itself) using computer technology in its place. The potential shop unit next to the closed Wine Rack shop would be no bigger than a kiosk and suggesting building over garage entrances behind the Nat West Bank to make a potential shop unit support this theory, hence my concerns about hidden issues.
Paul Gilbert
January 21st, 2010 at 7:07 pm
Although comments are sought on the proposed Waitrose development it is important to consider this within the wider context. The natural community is Knowle but includes Dorridge and Bentley Heath - B93 land. With a combined population of 20 000 there perhaps is a case for an additional supermarket to provide an alternative to Tesco in Knowle. If so the natural site is the delapidated Doridge precinct site particularly as the Dorridge population is less well served in respect of shopping than Knowle. The site has reasonable road access although most importantly any development should be of a sympathetic architectural style and of appropriate scale. If Sainsbury cannot develop the site to the satisfaction of the local community then the site should be offered to Waitrose.
Returning to the specific proposal. I had the opportunity to visit the exhibition and talk to the potential developers.
On the plus side Waitrose is recognised as the premium food retailing brand and would provide up market competition to Tesco. A Waitrose store would also bring shoppers from outside B93 - land to Knowle which would also have pro’s and con’s.
On the negative side. A large Waitrose store within yards of the few small independent food retailers could significantly damage their commercial viability particularly as there would be head on competition. The closure of the independent retailers could have a devastating effect on the mix of shops on and around the High Street and the “feel” of the area. The High Street is saturated with restaurants, hair stylists and so on - the consequence could therefore be a significant number of closed shops.
Additionally, the car parking provision is totally inadequate and the area will suffer from grid lock most of the day which of course will be aggrevated by delivery trucks trying to access the site along roads that are just too narrow. My reckoning, as a professional civil engineer, is that the parking provision is under sized by about 100 units.
Another concern is that the Village Hall would be relocated from its present central location to be squeezed behind Station Road and between the two would be a large expanse of car park - presumably free to Waitrose users and expensive for all other shoppers. This large area of tarmac could look unsightly.
It seems to me that the residents and visiters to B93 - land would benefit from either Sainsbury or Waitose located at Dorridge Precinct but scaled to suit the site and the needs of the locals and similarly the car parks around St. John’s Close need to be tidied up with some landscaping.
Regarding this Waitrose proposal in Knowle there is a lot more down side than up side so it should be REJECTED.
John Blackhall
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:34 pm
I am very much in favour of this development.
Visiting Tesco is an horrendous experience, first having to find parking, then being pushed around narrow shopping isles, then having to wait for a long time to be served. Competition is good!
Other benefits are increased parking, a redevelopment of the current Village Hall and hopefully an easier road system.
Maybe a better shopping centre with more choice will encourage more people to shop locally bringing additional trade to the existing shops?
I hope this application is approved.
January 23rd, 2010 at 10:57 pm
On consideration …
I live in Knowle and I love this environment.
In terms of shopping and the Tesco it is an embarrassment. It is really horrid. I’m sure I’m not alone where the one ‘one basket’ queue is suddenly closed…
I have a job. I cannot shop in Knowle. I have to shop elsewhere… with all the impact on the global environment.
I want a Waitrose. It is a great shop with a wide selection of good quality food.
Look at the benefits!
In terms of sheer snob value (lol) I want one here!
We have a (I think) benevolent developer.
We will have a new Village Hall.
The people being moved will have a better environment.
I am sure that access will have been very much considered.
To counter some of the other comments here …
Is the Greengrocer scared of Waitrose? Does he believe that they are so much better then him? If so, bye bye. If not then the increased traffic should give him a much better base to work from.
The One Shop. It’s awful.
The person that mentioned ‘housing estates’. A disastrous effect of the Land Rover site closing will give her all of the housing land that she could possibly want. Another issue I know but it is so sad.
The person that wanted the disused bowling green back. Why? It’s a mess. Are you going to start bowling?
The person that mentioned that the Council should re develop the St Johns area … it is a mess! Here’s a clue. Like every other council they are pretty much bankrupt.
ACCEPT this scheme. Look at the benefits. (and the best supermarket with great food!)
By the way, I have no link with Waitrose … but I have shopped there. It is the best food.
Let’s work with this developer. This is a one chance to get a great facility and an area of Knowle that is not very nice redeveloped. I understand that a number of people that have posted here may be pensioners and can use Tesco, but please give the rest of us a choice!
January 26th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
As a local resident for nearly 65 years I do not want the special village atmosphere in Knowle ruined by the density and size of the proposed development, involving a significant amount of noisy traffic and heavy lorries seven days a week to already overcrowded roads. A supermarket is entirely unnecessary and would ruin the character of the small village.
In my lifetime I have seen Solihull gradually develop from a pretty village to a much less appealing urban environment and strongly oppose Knowle village being permitted to suffer a similar fate.
If I wish to visit a supermarket I am prepared to travel, by public transport if possible, to the existing abundant provision within the borough of Solihull. Why didn’t Waitrose opt for the vacated Woolwoths store in Solihull?
St Johns Close won an award 50 years ago as a good example of sympathetic village development and I am entirely against urbanising/cramming more facilities into the high street side of it.
January 28th, 2010 at 10:15 am
I have analysed specifically, the car parking provision within the proposal to quantify my earlier comments. The number of spaces according to the diagram is 162. The number of spaces currently available around the village hall and the car park to the rear of Eric Lyons is 130. The number of car parking spaces taken away by the development from the Red Lion pub is 25 and the on road parking 18. The overall the current number of spaces is 173! The development takes 11 spaces off the capacity of Knowle car parking. (This does not include the loss of the private parking provision of the row of bungalows to be replaced). I too am dissatisfied with the Tesco store and hoped the Waitrose would offer a good solution for the majority. However, this proposal is deeply flawed.
February 3rd, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Whilst I live in Bentley Heath now, I did live in Knowle for over 30 years, and still use the shops in the village, and go to Knowle Parish Church.. I am horrified by the proposals to build such a huge Waitrose right in the centre of the village, it will change the whole feel of Knowle and dominate what has been an attractive village, with a ‘villagy’ atmosphere and small thriving independent retailers. A large supermarket – even a very good one - can’t help but have a detrimental effect on local businesses, and any subsequent closures will have an appalling effect on the area. Surely if the area needs another supermarket it should be set outside the village – not dominating it’s centre. Knowle is already packed far too tight with cars – particularly at the weekend; this development would bring infinitely more vehicles into the village. I assume that Waitrose intend to be open on a Sunday as well, so we can expect what has hitherto been a relatively quiet Sunday in the village, with only one or two shops open, to become a hub of activity for weekly shoppers around the village green. It’s not fair on the people who live there, and I for one don’t want Knowle to become as busy on a Sunday as it is already on a Saturday. I also believe that combined with the Sainsburies development which may go ahead in Dorridge there is potential for 20 articulated lorries to be going through Knowle in a 24 hour period. After the recent snow and ice, the roads surface is in a terrible condition, and the current road infra-structure is already struggling with the flow of traffic on a daily basis. Three pedestrian crossings over the course of the High Street already causes regular traffic jams, adding extra weightloading to the traffic will make it a logistical nightmare for everyone – let alone what the vibrations will potentially do to the beautiful listed buildings along the High Street. I know some people will be persuaded by the facelift of the village green area and the new village hall, but I do believe that Knowle village and Knowle people will be the ultimate losers. Please don’t let this proposed development go ahead.
February 9th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
SIZE
People of Knowle, take off your WaitROSE tinted spectacles and lets look at some facts.
The Solihull Retail, Leisure & Offices Study of Nov. 09 forecasts that Knowle needs 800 square metres of additional Convenience Store space by 2026; this proposal is for 1,400 square metres! (For comparison, the Tesco store is 560 square metres.) The Knowle Conservation Area Appraisal states that any new development must be limited in height and bulk; the proposed store is large in relation to the village, occupying an area about 3 times the size of the church. Thus the proposed store is far too large in relation to the Study forecast as well as the Appraisal limitations. Also the proposed location places it right at the centre of the village, where the Village Hall should remain. If we are to have additional store space it should be appropriately sized and located for the village and not aimed at pulling in people from further afield. Waitrose are currently building new small stores of about 230 square metres, so they are quite capable of adhering to the Study and Appraisal requirements.
PARKING
An increased car park capacity of 180 is proposed. My count of the current 4 small car parks is 127, suggesting an increase of 53. However, (1) the proposal shows the grass and trees to the West of the Hall being removed; if we want the grass and trees to remain this reduces capacity by 18; (2) 18 cars can currently park on the road outside the Hall and the Community Housing and they will not be able to under the proposal; (3) 5 cars can currently park in front of the Hall and they will not be able to under the proposal; (4) cars can currently park close together around St. John’s Close, whereas the proposal shows parking bays with less dense parking, losing 10 spaces. Altogether there is a net gain of only 2 spaces, or 20 if we let the grass and trees be removed. (By comparison, Waitrose in Hall Green has over 50 parking spaces and these are exclusive to Waitrose.)
Where are any additional shoppers meant to park? Where are the Waitrose workers meant to park? Then there are the delivery vehicles to consider, probably 10 to 20 per day, using the same roads as the shoppers. Furthermore, let’s not forget that there are times when the current car park capacity is insufficient for the current shops. We have to face the fact that there is no way to create significant extra parking space in Knowle unless really radical measures are taken, such as an underground car park, beneath St. John’s Close.
February 15th, 2010 at 11:09 am
In answer to Bob James’ comments about there probably being 10 - 20 Waitrose delivery vehicles per day, there will only be ONE.
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Sue is kidding herself, and the rest of us. The Tesco store has 10 deliveries a day! These are from all Tesco suppliers, not just Tesco lorries. If the Waitrose store were to have only one they would not do enough business.
February 23rd, 2010 at 4:14 pm
I implore the citizens of Knowle and Dorridge to just stop and think of the negative impact that the two proposed supermarkets will have on the B93 area as a whole. It is total madness to cram waitrose into the space suggested. The monolithic structure proposed for Dorridge is equally as bad being double the size. This will be going to planning and could be passed as soon as March. Thankfully a group of people have come together to object to the SIZE of the sainsburys proposal. They are not an anti Sainsbury group. Residents of Knowle,Dorridge and Bentley heath join Dorridge Residents Opposed to Village Superstore (DROVS) Email your concerns to drovs@hotmail.co.uk.
February 24th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
I am in total agreement with Sandie we all need to stop and think about the negative impact that the two proposed supermarkets will have upon Knowle and Dorridge.
If the proposed superstore for Dorridge gets the go ahead at the imminent planning meeting, I understand that the anticipated 17 delivery lorries each day will be making their way from the M42 through Knowle up the Warwick Road and turning right onto Station road between the hours of 5am and 11pm. Our local road infrastructure is not designed for so many lorries in addition to the vehicles of the large number of customers that these supermarkets are aiming to attract from outlying areas. If you have concerns about the SIZE of the sainsburys SUPERSTORE proposed for Dorridge then please email them ASAP to drovs@hotmail.co.uk
February 24th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
I particularly like what Bob James did with the “waitROSE” tinted spectacles gag. Apart from that there is nothing here to smile about. The future for B93 land is looking very bleak indeed, unless you are one of those folk who puts the grocery shopping above their quality of life. This is a great place to live, sundays feel like a sunday should feel. It’s relaxed and peaceful. We have a great deal to loose. I fear that it won’t be valued until we have lost it for good. Knowle is beautiful. It should stay as it is. Anything wrong with it will not be put right by plonking a waitrose in the middle. I will be doing my utmost to prevent the Waitrose from going ahead. I am quite sure that the Knowle society will have a coherent plan. Will that be enough? I shudder to think what might happen.
What will it take to convince people that the proposed supermarkets are bad news for the whole of B93.
The most demoralising thing i’ve heard so far is that one of our three councillors has “no objection” to the plan for Dorridge.
February 28th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
No one can honesty object to the redevelopment of Forest Court in Knowle. The only issue is over the size of the supermarket that is located there. What is currently proposed is classified by the government as a superstore. At 2,462sq m it is about 5 times the size of the recently expanded Tesco in Knowle.
Sainsbury’s estimate 700 cars per hour at peak times and given that the store is likely to be open for a minimum of 13 hours, I think we can reasonaly expect something in the region of 6-7,000 cars per day making their way to this store from lapworth, Hockley heath and all locations this side of the M42. The impact on Dorridge and Knowle will be horrendous.
I understand the Sainsbury’s have stated that all delivery lorries will leave the M42 at Junction 5, travelling down the A4141 through Knowle and turning right at the Warwick Road/Station Road junction. They will then go along Station Road to Dorridge, passing through the very small roundabout at the cricket ground. We all know how large vehicles struggle around there already.
Finally, in the region of 1,000 local children walk to school along Station Road/Grange Road, as Arden, Dorridge Junior and Dorridge Infant Schools are all located along this road. Not only will they be subjected to the increased car traffic but to the delivery lorries as well. We all know that the children tend to wander as they walk, the risks are obvious.
I urge you to object to the size of the Sainsbury’s. On the scale currently proposed, it will change the nature of Dorridge, Knowle and Bentley Heath for ever. Contact DROVS@hotmail.co.uk or call 01564 230091.
March 1st, 2010 at 11:56 am
Thank you Nick! I agree it’s just too big. I can’t get my head around the sheer size of it, i’m not sure that everyone fully appreciates the scale. All twenty trees are going to be ripped out along Forest road to make way for this SUPERSTORE. What will be planted in it’s place, just 5 trees along the service yard wall and then nothing whatsover, just the building itself. That will be attractive won’t it? Councillors are under the impression that there is widespread support for this scheme in the community, apart from those living close by. Why do they think that ? Mostly general word of mouth i believe. This is not a NIMBY issue. We cannot leave it to the people who live directly in the village. Obviously the people directly inconvenienced wii object, (good to see the protest signs going up!) People of the wider community must join together, against both this and the Waitrose development, JOIN DROVS, get your message across.
March 2nd, 2010 at 6:09 pm
I contributed earlier in the year to this forum and have had time to reflect on the Waitrose application and the associated Sainsbury development in Dorridge. I remain of the opinion that both of the current applications are deeply flawed.
Many of the contributors on this forum have presented well structured arguments that demonstrate that the Waitrose application is inappropriate. I think all residents of the surrounding area need to realise that if the application is successful and the changes made there is no going back. The application, as with the Sainsbury application, seems to follow the current penchant for squeezing developments into very small, inappropriate areas. The problem with this type of myopic application is that once built it can’t be altered due to the nature of the immediate environment and effectively you’re ‘stuck’ with it.
The issues of increased traffic, pollution, noise, poor road structures etc have been well outlined and need no further explanations. The cynic in me would say that Waitrose are keen to progress their application ASAP as if building work does begin on the currently proposed Sainsbury store it will very quickly demonstrate the inadequacies of that plan. Local opposition to the Knowle plans will then strengthen considerably.
As I see it these two supermarket plans along with the potential trebling of flights from Birmingham Airport and the potential for a High Speed Rail link across nearby countryside, maybe even at Dorridge, will make B93 a lot less pleasant place to live in than at present.
March 3rd, 2010 at 2:31 pm
I agree with Peter, and all those likeminded. The whole area is going to see a massive change but the great majority seem to be rather apathetic, or relying on the common sense of our Councillors. As Peter says, once this is approved there is no going back. Waitrose will be in place before we know it. Some are quite passionate about this. There is an interesting comments thread developing on thesilhillian.blogspot about the Dorridge development.
I hope we can all stay positive and gather some momentum against both proposals.
March 10th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Yesterday I received a letter of notification of the planning proposal and an invitation to make a response.
This all now seems to be being rushed through so very very quickly.
Up till January we knew there were plans afoot and possibly coming but they were just rumours, but then out of the blue we get invited to a Public meeting.
And then suddenly within 2 months the full hearing to discuss and make a decision on it is to be made.
and we discover Kimbereley have been meeting with the Council for well over one year. And we the residents were not aware of that.
Were our councillors?
I hope that we as the public rally and stand firm together and hope we can try to stop these plans.
And maybe force them to take it to a full public hearing / meeting with the Government involved.
My upstairs neighbour did not get the letter.
A reverse of last time when she got the postcard sized leaflet inviting people to the exhibition in the Village Hall.
So did all the others it was directed to get theirs?
I will be submitting my response by e mail but you need to include the letter you received to show you are living in the vicinity.
You can also deliver it in person, by e mail or by the postal system.
The letter is dated the 8th of March, and we have only 21 days from that date to put in our comments. i.e. the 29th March.
I see there is a proposed public meeting for the 25th March at Arden school.
Should that or can it be bought forward?
As it leaves such a short period of time post that meeting for people to put their views in.
Other people can go online the Solihull Connect site and they are wanting people to say how the development or the use of land might affect the enjoyment of our home, the appearance of the streets and countryside as a result of the development and anything (which is bold typed and underlined) of public (Again bold type) interest. All comments made will be open to the public and will be posted on line.
They do not want to hear about how private matters which they include how it might affect property prices, other possible future developments, neighbour disputes. Or any inconveniences caused as a result of the development.
However that latter part is important as there will be noise and air pollution.
For maybe 2 years??
Also it will be difficult to park as they close the road off for the work to be done.
I would encourage all who got this letter to respond but also all others to view the proposal online and leave comments there.
I thought there were to be 10 replacement bungalow accommodations, but this says 6.
Have some of the residents refused already?
I do hope the remainder have not had any pressure placed upon them to move.
Guilt that if they stay it will affect the development.
I still am totally against it.
Tonight on Midlands Today they featured the opening today (the 10th of March) of a Sainsbury supermarket in Wombourne Staffordshire where the builders also have done some work needed in the village.
A planning officer stated he saw this as the way forward for supermarkets getting planning permission to build in towns, rather than out of city retail parks. They will do something in return for the local community.
In other words local improvements are done free of charge. And therefore saving Council money.
The residents there in Wombourne in the greater majority like us were against the idea. And most still are. Even though it went through quickly.
Also the local independent traders there still have concerns but Sainsbury’s apparently will include the local independent stores and advertise them on their web site for free.
But there the additional work done for the village seems to have found favour with the planning committee.
Midlands Today are asking people for their opinions. I may well contact them abut the proposals for here.
On another note, the badger sett under the Bowling Green.
Right at the heart of the development.
A keen badger watcher says they have not been seen since November.
They do not hibernate over winters but stay inside in very cold spells.
But they come out to forage on nicer less cold evenings.
I am very concerned they might have been poisoned or gassed.
Kimberley pre public exhibition a casual poisoning?
Unless someone has had a more recent sighting.
Are Knowle Society allowed access to the Green to check for any ominous signs?
Basically I think this whole development being rushed though like this is very fishy.
I think it ’stinks’.
I hope the bowling green does not.
A more recent badger sighting would help me be less concerned for them.
Has anyone seen anyone doing radar work to determine the extent off the sett on the bowling green as they promised to do?
And the monitoring any comments from them would alleviate my concerns.
March 11th, 2010 at 1:37 am
Sorry Michele, I know nothing of the Badger well being. Like yourself, I hope they have come to no harm. As you say, it has been very cold indeed.
You are right, this Waitrose proposal seems to be pushing through at an alarming pace. Stress levels in Dorridge have reached an all time high over the last few weeks.) Tonight though, we can breath a sigh of relief for the time being as Solihull planning committee rejected the Sainsbury’s proposal unanimously. I would be encouraged by this, stay positive and unite against it.
March 11th, 2010 at 10:57 am
I am pleased to hear they have rejected the Sainsbury redevelopment in Dorridge.
But…..
Could that be because they favour the one for Knowle??
After they have been colluding behind our backs for maybe up to 2 years.
I hope they have not got rid of the badgers well in advance of the public exhibition.
I was told there were about 18 there.
Not all 18 or so could have perished in a bad winter. There were about 8 cubs born last year.
I do hope they refuse the Kimberley proposal.
But I smell a big fish as I said and just wonder if it is because of the ‘in house’ talks held in secret.
March 11th, 2010 at 11:56 am
Michele,
I have absolutely no idea what will happen with the Kimberley plan, but from the meeting that took place last night it would certainly appear that some of our Planning Committee have very strongly held views about the villages in Solihull, and how they should function for those who live there. The remainder of councillors on the committee who didn’t speak also showed the good sense to reject the proposal for sound planning reasons. It was nothing to do with favouring Wairose in Knowle.
Don’t forget, he scheme proposed was completely out of scale for Dorridge, amongst many other things. There’s a lot of information on the thesilhillianblogspot.com on Waitrose/Sainsbury’s and other local issues, and i’m sure the Dorridge Residents website will carry info too.
There may be meetings going on with the council, and it’s frustrating when you don’t know what’s going on. It might not be as negative as you think. The Council Planning Committee will have to judge the proposal on it’s own merits whilst considering planning law.
March 11th, 2010 at 3:51 pm
The principle is fine, but the scale and impact on the immediate area is shocking.
I have made a concerted effort to use the independant traders in knowle for my meat, fish, veg, bread and not forgetting sweets! It will be more important than ever to support local traders so we can keep the great service and character that they provide to the village. Is there any grouping of suporters of the local traders?
March 12th, 2010 at 11:34 am
This proposal for a ’small’ Waitrose seems anything BUT small – and I certainly don’t think that the developers would build it for the good of the village if there was little in it for them.
Now Sainsbury has been turned down so should Waitrose Knowle ,and Dorridge don’t need anymore supermarkets we support the independant traders.
Councils need to spend the money makeing it a safer place to live for the elderly and our future generation
I hope this does not go through
March 13th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Although the Sainsbury’s application was thrown out, and the plan quite simply anihilated by the councillors, Dorridge is not out of the woods by a long way. We are delighted by the result on Wednesday, but we don’t know whether Sainsbury’s will continue to be intransigent on the issue of size. They may well take their hideous proposal to appeal and get their own way. Unfortunately there are statistics that back up the theory that we can support more supermarkets in the area. The problem with the Waitrose proposal, in my view, is the location chosen. The disruption to local residents will be horrendous, the parking for the store is insufficient. Those people worst affected should be warned, they will be quite unfairly labelled in some quarters as NIMBY, small minded, and would you believe half witted. They will be derided for their justifiable concern. Fortunately there are a lot of people who will be supportive and unselfish. There is a brilliant letter in the solihull observer this week calling for better innovative solutions .. it finishes off… We’re their customers, because we live here , and because we’re worth it.
March 14th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
“WRONG SIZE, WRONG PLACE & TRAFFIC CHAOS!”
WHY THE WAITROSE PLANS SHOULD BE REJECTED
1. Although it is slightly smaller than the initial proposals, the planned store is far too large in relation to the Solihull Retail, Leisure & Offices Study and the Knowle Conservation Area Character Appraisal. It is also 2 to 3 times as large as the Church. If Waitrose are serious about being a good neighbour in Knowle than they should submit plans that don’t destroy the character of the Village.
2. Why should a supermarket occupy and dominate the prime central location in the Village? This is where the Village Hall should remain, otherwise we will lose the character of Knowle that is cherished, not just by residents but by visitors as well. Any new shop should be located along with other shops; the best location would be near Station Road in order to spread out the food shops in the Village.
3. The Village Hall was built by Public Subscription and is part of the character and heritage of the Village. To knock it down would be to destroy part of Knowle’s history. A new hall built by someone else with no Village involvement would be soulless and with no sense of tradition. Why should Waitrose destroy what previous generations of villagers fought for and built?
4. It is suggested that the present Village Hall looks dated and we should have something more modern. Well, all building styles are either loved or loathed and tastes change with time; it could be that the Hall’s appearance is better regarded in the future. In fact why don’t we seek to get it preserved (scheduled or listed) as an example of early post-war publicly-funded building?
5. The proposed parking arrangements suggest an increase of 53 in the number of defined spaces. However, this ignores the very many places that people manage to park at present in addition to the defined boxes: these ad hoc spaces will be lost in the planned scheme. Add on to this the current inadequacy of parking space, the need for Waitrose workers to park, the additional traffic generated by Waitrose as well as the delivery vehicles using the same roads as shoppers and we have the perfect recipe for traffic chaos, frustration and ultimate loss of business because people will not be bothered with the hassle.
6. The plans to “scatter” 3 of the Community Housing bungalows seem particularly badly thought through. Also, some of them have off-road parking: where are they to park in the new plan?
7. It seems obvious that the local independent food shops will be particularly badly hit by these plans. If we lose one or more of them then again we will be sacrificing part of the Village’s character & uniqueness.
March 15th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
I hope the community can get a good number of objectors together. I think the Knowle Society could be key in this scheme. It might take a body of this kind to put forward the facts fairly, both the good and the bad in some kind of newsletter maybe? If the passionate people out there can help deliver them, then the message may hit home. A large number of people will be ignorant of the facts and flaws of the scheme, and just thinking …… oh how lovely, a waitrose store. They will not have had the time, inclination or facilities to do the research. The character of Knowle is at stake, there is no place for apathy in these times. Everyone will be affected by this, if by nothing else then the increased traffic.
March 19th, 2010 at 10:50 am
I believe the proposed development will simply cause more problems than it solves:
The Waitrose is not small. It quotes a sales area of just under 1400 sqm (Tescos is 560), however it has kept this area artificially low by submitting plans for a very large entrance foyer. Who is to say in future this will not be changed after all it is only an internal alteration. In the meantime they have been able to compare with stores that size to keep the traffic projections low. Has anyone else noticed that one of the stores used to calculate the traffic projections is a Co-op in Anglesey; another is in central London with no car parking?
The proposal needs some roads in St Johns Close to be widened to allow traffic flow. This work is not included in the plans; it is only a recommendation to the Council. I have heard several people talk about a covenant on the Village Green that wouldn’t allow this. Does anyone have more information?
The application assumes that 20% of Waitrose’s customers will switch from Tescos. The others currently do their shopping elsewhere. That’s a lot of people coming in and fighting for parking. Funnily enough it doesn’t mention how many customers will be switching from our independent shops!
March 19th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
I have just read your announcement of the public meeting and as a resident of the area for many years and recipient of your newsletter I am extremely disappointed. This document is very far from being impartial and in some cases reiterates the misleading statements given by the Developers in their marketing campaign. I use the car parking provision statements for example. The others, including the Shopping Trip analysis data and traffic flow analysis, are more subtle.
They say that 10 of the 180 spaces will be “transferred” from the Red Lion car park. They have actually taken 25 away! I suggest you go and count them. They deliberately ignore the on-road parking provision that they will also be replacing as part of their car park proposals - approximately 12 - 14 car spaces. The figure 128 for the current public spaces is true but where will the 37 - 39 cars which currently park outside of these public spaces park. The net increase to the parking facilities in Knowle will be nearer 17. (Of which approximately 12 would be for the sole use of disabled drivers.) If this is truly adequate Waitrose won’t need a very big store at all.
I personally would welcome Waitrose to the village but the store is far too big for the actual additional parking provision.
Paul Gilbert
March 20th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
I think the scale of the proposed scheme is disproportionate for a village the size of Knowle, and that the consequences in terms of traffic, parking and impact on local businesses are generally negative for the reasons eloquently given by others in this forum.
If we consider what attributes a ‘good’ scheme might have, they would probably include:
- significant improvement to the visual appeal of the immediate area
- good shopping facilities
- not primarily abstractive (i.e. new supermarket doesn’t simply gain custom at the expense of local shops. This can be achieved by the new supermarket acting as an ‘attractor’ - i.e. loss of existing local trade to the new supermarket is at least compensated by inflow of new customers.)
- ‘attractor’ doesn’t have too large a radius that it significantly affects balance/ equilibrium (e.g in terms of traffic density, mismatch of parking supply and demand etc.).
Key considerations are hence scale and its relationship to village equilibrium. The proposed development represents an over-supply in terms of the needs of the local community, and its attractor properties will draw in more custom than local infrastructure and available (constrained) space can bear.
An alternative might be to demolish Tesco (and some of the other buildings in the arcade), move the village hall (as proposed), maximise/ optimise parking and build an appropriately sized, attractive, Waitrose as Knowle’s one and only supermarket. Just a thought.
March 20th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
It is my understanding that the delivery lorries for this ’small’ Waitrose would be exiting the High Street by Loche Fine and coming into St. John’s Close that way. This is no more than a service road and not appropriate for large delivery lorries.
Once in St. John’s Close the delivery lorries have got to negotiate around the close to exit onto Station road. St. John’s Close is not easy to negotiate in a small family car, never mind a lorry!
Even though more parking spaces are supposed to be provided if they have time restrictions on them like all the other car parks in Knowle then the Post Office workers will still park on the road, thus making it impossible for the lorries to drive round.
Why not just convert all the waste land and old bowling green into car parks so that all the cars parked on the road could then be moved into the new parking spaces?
We do not need another supermarket - we do need more parking spaces. I know in an ideal world we would all be walking to the shops and school but this isn’t going to happen, so give us more parking and make it easier for people to access the shops and restaurants we already have.
We DO NOT NEED ANOTHER SUPERMARKET IN KNOWLE.
March 21st, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Many of the postings in this site come from people who have lived in the area for many years. I have too and I can recall the two most recent recessions when the village High St took on the guise of a ghost town.
Without development money being spent, I can see the village (which we all love) stagnating. And we are, after all, talking about improving the most untidy and unattractive part of the place. Economic activity will get the local economy going again.
As for the small spaces and tight roads, what’s the problem with encroaching on what’s laughingly called the’ Green’; what’s the attachment to this clump of scruffiness? Better use can be put to it in the general devleopment.
Waitrose will attract an altogether better off shopper who will surely bring their money and prosperity to Knowle? As well as providing more choice (are you listening Tesco?), it can only help those specialist shops already here.
I am of the opinion that we owe it to the next generation to improve what we have here and this development does just that.
Bring it on, I say!
March 21st, 2010 at 11:42 pm
Dear Sirs,
I have today received your ‘Notice of a Public meeting on the subject of the Waitrose developement.
If the Society thinks that the meeting will be oversubscribed, surely it would have been better to split the meeting, possibly on a geographical basis, so that more people could attend, and have their say.
I was also surprised that, the Society having said nothing so far, gives the impression in the Notice that they are in favour of the plans,
John Withers
March 22nd, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Surely everybody using facilities in Knowle can see that major changes are required to the current arrangements! You struggle to find a car parking space, when you do it is barely wide enough to fit a small moped nevermind unload children. Once out of the car you are forced to use Tesco (an organisation I am wholly opposed to) to buy some of your goods. Suprisingly for a supermarket that everybody in knowle denies using once inside it is normally packed to capacity. Competition would be a great thing, at least Waitrose have some form of social conscience and try to support local producers.
I can not believe the gusto with which these plans have been attacked by the vocal minority. One commentator even wrote a letter to the paper saying how appauled he was that the plans may include something for our young people to do! What a sad state of affairs that we have become this miserable. Looking into a crystal ball I see these plans being turned down and the people who organised the campaign celebrating a great victory. Sadly this victory will be to the detriment of young families and children who will be saddled with the current arrangements for decades to come.
Presumeably some of the people who have lived in the village for 50 years and are opposed to this plan presided over the planning of the precinct, surely the ugliest structure (barring Forrest Court) in the midlands.
If the current plans are not right lets work with the developers to create something great for knowle not just fight until we get no change.
March 23rd, 2010 at 12:09 am
For an organisation that has not ‘come to a view’ it seems strange that you are urging local residents to ‘look at the appearance of the (St Johns) area with new eyes’ and that the changes will be an ‘improvement’. There is a very clear bias in the leaflet you put through my door last night which I find very concerning. If the Knowle Society proposes to represent itself as ‘undecided’ then please ensure that the material it circulates in the local community reflects this position, rather than trying to covertly pass off a big tick in the pro development box as a neutral voice.
I have spent the last 10 years providing advice to the public sector on large scale infrastructure developments of this kind and am well aware of the tricks of the trade used to prepare a compelling case in support of a given development. It would appear that one or two of these techniques have been put to good use in your leaflet.
A brief review of the the information that can be found on the Solihull Council web site to which you refer in your leaflet, namely the DTZ report and the Conservation Area Assessment (CAA), demonstrates how a document can be used to support either side of an argument.
You say the CAA refers to a the St John’s close area as a ‘less cohesive environment’ and one that would ‘benefit from concerted enhancement’. So it does. The same document also refers to ‘key negatives’ for the Knowle area being:
- modern infill development and the amalgamation of plots
- errosive effects of the increasing height of developments
- use of non traditional materials
- weight of traffic along the High Street and Warwick Road
Strangely non of these factors, which are just a few of the key negatives of the proposed St John’s close development, are referred to in your leaflet.
You say the DTZ report identified that ‘a very large proportion of expenditure on food is spent outside Knowle’ which means there is an opportunity for additional provision. So it does, it also noted that in 2008 the combined convenience sales for local stores was £19.2 million and that this give an average sales density per sq m net in Knowle that is significantly higher than the company average sales densities (£11k in Knowle compared to £8k for other Tesco stores). Clearly we are spending alot of money on food in Knowle - which incidently is probably why it is so attractive to Waitrose.
Again you make no mention of this part of the report in the leaflet nor do you draw attention to the fact that this conclusion was drawn from a telephone survey of a very small sample of households (the survey, which related to the shopping in Solihull, Shirley, and Chelmsley Wood as well as Knowle, included just 1511 households across all of these areas which probably equates to sub 100 households in Knowle) Hardly representative and to use this as a supporting argument is at best somewhat disingenous.
The DTZ report basically concluded that there was room for some competition in Knowle but that the need quite small - only 550m2 of additional provision - and signficantly smaller than the current development proposal.
This selective use of data and facts to back up your argument in support of the development, for that is what it is, worries me. If this is what we can expect from the Knowle Society then I dont think I want you to represent my views to the Council.
I am worried that an unelected, self selected group that has no accountability to the people living in Knowle has made itself the de facto arbiter of what is good for this village. Can the Society really provide a balanced, unbiased report? Based on performance to date you will need to work hard to convince me that this is the case.
In case you were wondering, I dont want a Waitrose in Knowle. But I do want an honest debate of the issues. I urge you to be more honest.
March 23rd, 2010 at 11:19 am
Unfortunately Mr Robinson, we dont always get a chance to work with the developers, despite the public consultations/ PR exercises. Past experience shows that concerns are largely ignored. Mostly the public haven’t a clue what meetings or discussions are taking place. This can lead to anxiety. I hope very much that you are right and that Waitrose have some kind of social conscience and tackle the concerns. If it were a better plan in the first place then there wouldn’t be so much opposition. Same goes for the Forest Court redevelopment. You dont need to have lived here for fifty years to oppose either scheme. The “vocal minority” are entitled to their gusto. Why can’t you believe it? We are not all miserable, we want what we believe is for the best. When I hear about all the supermarkets that are supposedly needed in the area its nothing short of a miracle that we have survived this long without them.
Its a great shame that he Knowle society are appearing to be biased, I found the information in the last post by Joanne Guy very interesting and agree with her sentiments.
March 23rd, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Jo, lets not get our arguments mixed up Knowle is a great place to live I am sure we all agree. If it is let down by anything it is the poor shopping arrangements and the visual appeal of the area behind the high street. As you walk from the park towards the high street you certainly don’t get the impression you are approaching a “nice” village. Anything would be preferable to the area as it stands at the moment which is why there are people in favour of the plan.
These plans would aid the local economy, less people leaving the area to do supermarket shopping should mean more revenue for shops on the high street. More people using the village hall for events would have a similar effect. I have actually attended parties organised by local people at Dickens Heath village hall due to the state of our facility.
On reflection the arguments against the plan are not that compelling.
Deliveries - Surely there is a workable solution
Parking - Replacing unused spaces with usable ones sounds sensible
Badgers - It’s not that long since we were considering destroying them alltogether so a little bit of re-homing should be quite a nice alternative.
If we manage to get a groundswell of positive opinion hopefully the plans will be passed. The best route for those opposed may be to start a catchily named pressure group but also to make positive contributions to improve the plans put forward.
March 24th, 2010 at 11:30 am
I’ve contributed to this forum a couple of times and am constantly surprised to find people in support of the scheme. You just need to carefully and rationally consider the facts. The plan is to build a supermarket several times larger than the size of the Knowle Tesco branch with virtually no increase in car parking spaces, supporters of the project think that that is OK? As you will all know Waitrose is unrepresented in the West Midlands, and for whatever reason has a certain brand reputation which will encourage people to travel from some distance to shop at the store encouraging traffic growth. Let’s be honest if the plan was for an Aldi store it would have never got off the ground!
I’ll reiterate the point again that the plans are attempting to ‘squash’ a large store into an inappropriate area and not provide any extra parking facilities, it’s simply nonsensical. What the local populace need to consider is that if the plans go ahead and it’s a disaster in terms of traffic , pollution , noise etc then it can’t be changed you’re stuck with it as there will be no way to alter road layouts , provide extra parking etc. It’s highly likely that Solihull Council would see this as an opportunity to abolish free parking and how long before the Knowle by-pass plans would be revisited? I simply can’t understand why any Knowle resident would support the plans as they currently stand.
March 24th, 2010 at 11:52 am
Have we been told the planned number and timing of the delivery lorries and yet? Do we have confirmed opening days/hours? I am particularly worried by the amount of traffic/ gridlock this store will cause. This normally goes hand in hand with ill humoured people. Parking in the area is very difficult already.
I’m not sure about the unused spaces that could be made usable. Sounds like an excellent idea. Where are they? I agree that the area could do with improvement, but not to the extent that “anything would be better”. The rear end of buildings in many villages would not be a pretty picture. Is a new Waitrose going to make that much of an improvement? I think the arcade where tesco is situated is by far the worst aspect of the area. But this will still be there. The back end of the high steet shops will still be there. I’m struggling to visualise an improvement.
March 24th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
For people’s information the badgers are alive and well.
There are 2 setts the Old Bowling Green now. See under bungalows.
Plus they are protected.
Sort of places a major problem of where they can build?!!!!
March 24th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
Peter, “unrepresented” Waitrose have a store in Shirley. It is unlikely people will travel from there or that side of Solihull to visit a slightly newer one. Generally I don’t think people plan their weekends around travelling miles to visit new supermarkets.
Paul, I think the improvement would be the replacement of the old tired village hall with a nice new one.
Michele, the developers can apply for a license to move the badgers, which I am asuming they will do.
I whole heartedly agree that the area that does need development is the area around Tesco’s. If residents suggest this to the council whilst campaigning against the plans it could add extra weight to your argument.
March 25th, 2010 at 9:34 am
Planning Application No. 2010 / 321 –
Redevelopment of Knowle village centre including Waitrose Supermarket.
I write to register my objection to the development proposed under the above planning application. My objections are as follows :
SUPERMARKET PROVISION
While some in the village would like to see some improvements to the Tesco’s supermarket we have at the moment, the scale of the proposed supermarket is totally out of proportion to a village the size of Knowle. While Tescos are not ideal they do provide all the day to day requirements of the average shopper. If the checkout service is inefficient surely this can be addressed to the Management?
There are excellent independent retailers in the village already, butchers, greengrocers, bakers, pet shop, newsagents (incorporating the Post Office counter). All these retailers may well be forced out of business with the advent of a larger supermarket, who by their size can undercut independents and offer a one-stop shop experience.
PARKING AND TRAFFIC
Without going into the numbers involved, as there are many correspondents who disagree with the figures quoted in the Transportation assessment, please be assured (because I live in St John’s Close and can see the chaos daily) that the current parking provision is already at saturation point. By 9 o’clock in the morning the roads surrounding the Green and St Johns Close are full with cars belonging to people who work in the village. (Here again I can substantiate this with photographs). For Waitrose to quote car-sharing as a means of reducing traffic coming into the village is a nonsense, they do not appreciate the demographics of the area. (Indeed we already have some car-sharing, there have been instances where several cars belonging to drivers who work in Solihull will come and park in Knowle (free) and then take one car into Solihull where you have to pay £9.00 or more a day per car).
If you add in the additional vehicles of shoppers coming into the village to shop at Waitrose and the staff working in the store, the (?) increased parking provision will not cope, and cars will be queuing in all directions waiting for a space.
According to the site plan, to cross from the Green to the front canopy of the store involves crossing the road where cars will be moving from the smaller Waitrose car park to the larger one, and right next to the road where the delivery lorries will be exiting.
The proposed access for delivery lorries from the High Street into St Johns Close will involve cutting back the pavement on both corners of St Johns Close/High Street. The noise and exhaust fumes from the HGVs will be unbearable, far too near an already narrow pavement much used by the elderly and parents with young children on foot and in pushchairs.
I would ask that before considering the application the Highways department undertake an independent survey which will show a more realistic estimate of future traffic flow and increase.
RED LION PUBLIC HOUSE
The development will take all but 10 of the parking spaces in the Red Lion car park. Have the lost spaces been taken into account? Additionally, there will be no vehicle access to the Pub from St Johns Close as there is now. This will mean that any customers wanting to visit the Pub by car will have to enter and leave by the very narrow opening onto the High Street/Warwick Road. This opening is on an almost blind corner from the south and is almost opposite the busy junction with Kenilworth Road. This will be a real safety hazard.
VILLAGE HALL
Does Knowle need a new Village Hall? It appears to have served the Community well for many years, for various Clubs, amateur dramatics, etc. If it is an eyesore consideration can be given to ways the exterior can be made more attractive, rather than being demolished. This will presumably be discussed at length with the Village Hall Committee. As this amenity was (I am told) built by public subscription, it is only fair that the public be allowed to have a say in its future.
BUNGALOWS
The development will require the destruction of 10 perfectly suitable elderly persons’ bungalows, and the displacement of the occupants. Waitrose have stated that no-one will be obliged to vacate. However my understanding is that if the occupants are reluctant to move the Council may repossess the 10 bungalows to be demolished with a Court Order and upon certain grounds, including that the Council ‘provide suitable accommodation’. (Please see the Appendix which gives an extract from the Council’s standard tenancy agreement and the Housing Act which covers this point).
It is doubtful whether the 6 replacement bungalows which are going to be squeezed into the space between the new Village Hall and the properties on the High Street could be considered ‘suitable’. The 6 occupants will lose gardens they have tended for years and in some cases, driveways. The offer of £3,000.00 compensation for them to move is an insult.
TREES
This redevelopment will involve the destruction of over 20 trees currently in the area under consideration, mostly mature trees. The revised layout plans show trees to be planted around the car parks, but it will be years before these reach maturity, (and not even then if they are vandalised first, as happened to some new ones in Knowle park last year).
TO SUMMARISE :
I have been as objective as possible in raising these objections. They are not just based on ‘Nimbyism’ but looking at the effect of the development on the whole village and surroundings. Knowle Village does not need another Supermarket in the location proposed and of this size. Waitrose could consider locating their supermarket outside of the village centre, perhaps on the ground adjacent to the football ground in Hampton Road? Or consider the Dorridge site as Dorridge does not have any supermarket provision other than the Tesco Express.
The proposal cannot justify the destruction of 10 bungalows, a Village hall, more than 20 established trees, possibly an active badger sett and the displacement of 10 elderly persons.
The central area of the village to the East of St Johns Close will become one vast expanse of supermarket and car park, with substantial increased traffic congestion in the centre and in the surrounding roads.
APPENDIX
Extract from Solihull MBC’s standard tenancy agreement.
Section 3 – Your rights as a tenant
“You have the following rights :-
13. Occupation of Your Home
You have the right to live peacefully in your home without interruption or interference from us as long as you keep to the terms of this tenancy agreement. However, we may have to enter your property in certain circumstances, as explained in Clause ll of Section 7. “
(Section 7 - Clause 11 covers the tenants obligation to allow SMBC or any of its agents, contractors access to all parts of the home to carry out repairs or other works or adjoining property)
Section 8. – How Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council may end the tenancy
We can only end your tenancy on grounds which come from Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1985 as amended by the Housing Act 1996. If we intend to get a court order against you we will give you at least four week’s notice in writing …
Grounds on which the Court may order repossession if suitable accommodation is available:
(i) You have allowed the home to become overcrowded (Ground 9):
(ii) We intend to demolish, reconstruct or refurbish your home and cannot reasonably do this without the property being empty (Grounds 10 and 10A)
Extract from Housing Act 1985 - SCHEDULE 2
Section 84.
GROUNDS FOR POSSESSION OF DWELLING-HOUSES LET UNDER SECURE TENANCIES
Ground 10
The landlord intends, within a reasonable time of obtaining possession of the dwelling-house—
(a) to demolish or reconstruct the building or part of the building comprising the dwelling-house, or
(b) to carry out work on that building or on land let together with, and thus treated as part of, the dwelling-house, and cannot reasonably do so without obtaining possession of the dwelling-house.
Ground 10A
The dwelling-house is in an area which is the subject of a redevelopment scheme approved by the Secretary of State or the [F13Housing Corporation or Scottish Homes]in accordance with Part V of this Schedule and the landlord intends within a reasonable time of obtaining possession to dispose of the dwelling-house in accordance with the scheme.
March 25th, 2010 at 10:20 am
Mr Robinson , I think you’ll find there is no Waitrose store in Shirley.
Perhaps you mean the Hall Green (Birmingham) branch ?
If we are to have a proper debate let’s all get our facts right.
March 25th, 2010 at 11:51 am
They are protected but if they are to be moved and Kimberley apply for a licence to do that then a lot of things need to be taken into consideration.
It cannot be done with a swift click of the finger’s.
And the public can become involved.
And appeal.
The law states that if a sett is to be relocated and a developer allowed to build on their previous site, then wildlife/badger experts will need to do a full assessment of the site and see about the feasibility of them being moved.
A badger site states if a developer is planning a build on land they know has a sett on that an expert should have been involved from the start to make sure they follow the law.
It also states that in any development process that this is best considered right from the start of any planning phase.
As it will save time and money.
As the assessment is carried out early on.
So why did this not happen?
We know the architect had never visited Knowle before the exhibition.
If he had he should have seen evidence of their presence.
Kimberley may have had to rethink the development.
And it may have saved Kimberley time and money.
The experts can state that it could be detrimental to move them.
So no licence.
But they would ask that the entire size of the 2 setts is determined by radar assessment.
I would imagine as there are now 2 seperate setts that they are occupying the entire Bowling Green.
And maybe some of the car park and the bungalow’s garden’s.
Also for them to be relocated there will be a need for a Badger Group to become involved to try an find suitable and safe and a secure private piece of land and unless a large enough empty or 2 in this case setts can be found they would then have to build or construct artificial setts for them. 2 setts in our case.
They cannot be moved between January and July if there are any cubs.
So I presume it would be Kimberley who would have to pay the full costs of relocating them and the cost of building them 2 new setts I presume?
Additional costs.
The granting of a licence to proceed might require them to have an full assessment of the land done before the licence is issued and badger groups and the public can appeal against a licence being issued.
Handing back the land can also be seen to be good publicity for a developer!
The site talks about in a development say of a small area of housing building them safe run’s under roads by reinforcing the run’s to prevent collapse - as any digging on land where there is a sett and any collapse of a run, caused by heavy plant material and id it causes injury or death of a badger– that is illegal, and it talks of using proper fencing to keep them safe.
The Bowling Green is key to this development.
It has a population of Badger which will grow again this year.
Now I am not anti Waitrose.
And yes the shopping centre is ugly.
But we are stuck with it.
When I cared for my mother she would not eat any foods other than top branded and some Waitrose products.
I used the Hall Green store.
What I am objecting to is its size.
But if they were to build a smaller more acceptably sized shop then the problem would still remain where?
I am against it’s placement, the moving of older people from housing, and in some cases splitting them up and isolating a few much further away from the shops.
And possibly endangering a protected species animal.
And the fact we will STILL not have enough parking at the end.
If Waitrose predict 60 per hour and we get 52 more spaces at the end, and we already have a need NOW for more parking then it is still leaving us very short.
And outside visitors coming is to use the Waitrose may not come again if they encounter parking issues.
As a resident of a property on the other side of the Green, I see the number of cars we have parked outside our home now.
Some inconsiderately parked, some maybe encroaching over driveways slightly.
Also you need to think of the population.
Knowle has a larger % of older people than the rest of the Borough.
And Solihull’s levels are higher than the average for the UK.
Knowle is seen as a quiet village to retire too.
And this age group is growing rapidly.
That is why you have to think ahead to ensure there are enough facilities for the populations predicted in 2026.
A smaller store of 300 or so square metres would be more acceptable but where they would still be an issue.
Waitrose is slightly more expensive than some other food shops in some of their top quality foods, and a growing older population who have to look at their budgets constantly may not be able to shop there.
And as I have said before I believe the council should do those works not get them as a freebie for allowing the project to go ahead.
Also how will the shops from the One Stop to by Greedy Guts, who have an area behind their shops access the delivery area of their shops is the access road to the alley to by the One Stop and Nat West is closed?
Lorries parking at th kerbside to deliver causing even more traffic problems.
March 25th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
The negatives to this scheme are many, most of which i’m sure have been put forward on this forum. I hear the arguments for, and i’m not convinced in the slightest. This up market store will be a crowd puller - i’m certain of it, I know exactly what Peter is saying.
I agree that the one stop shopping solution offered by waitrose will have a derimental effect on local retailers.
Despite wading through the planning application documents, I can’t see anywhere that mentions opening times. The traffc surveys don’t seem to mention Sundays? Will it be closed on Sunday? I particularly hate the prospect of Sunday being just like any other day, and Knowle becoming just like everywhere else. No pretty new village hall will compensate for the detrimental effects of this scheme.
March 25th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
I have answered my own question, just thought i’d post the info in case anybody else was wondering. I eventually found it on waitrose presentation boards this via the silhilian blogspot website.
Trading hours will be confirmed nearer the project completion, however,
anticipated opening times are:
Monday to Thursday: 8:30am - 8pm
Friday: 8:30am - 9pm
Saturday: 8:30am - 8pm
Sunday: 10am - 4pm
March 25th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Peter, If we are talking about getting facts right, it was you that stated Waitrose was unrepresented in the West Midlands, which turned out to be a long way from correct. You have now decided to split hairs by pointing out that Waitrose is in Hall Green. It is probably in actual fact very close to the border of Hall Green / Shirley. I do not subscribe to the fact that we are going to attract people from miles around to visit our Waitrose, maybe a handfull from Dorridge and around Widney Manor station.
Michele, I fully understand your concerns about our elderly population but if we only attract old people to the area it won’t make for a very balanced community. Imagine going to the shops when you are 80 and not seeing any babies or small children, it would be a pretty sad place. Creating a centre for kids, mums groups, e.t.c e.t.c would be a really great thing.
If the badgers swell their ranks to more than eighteen I would suggest they might need moving anyway. Surely the houses around the area suffer from bin intrusions and fouling. One mans protected species is anothers vermin. When badgers were protected their numbers were dwindling due to the farmers bumping them off, we are now over run with the things so lets not get too emotional about it.
I think the only shop to suffer from the introduction of a Waitrose would be Tescos with customers defecting to a shop that has some space between the products. Surely all Peter’s people planning their weekends around a trip to our Waitrose would visit some of our specialist shops/restaurants.
“What shall we do this weekend dear? - dunno shall we go to a supermarket in Knowle - ooooh yes and then on to the Allora for a curry.”
Take some positive steps, consider what you think might be suitable development for Knowle. Make some suggestions to change the proposed plan.
March 26th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Ouch !
Mr Robinson , yes you are quite right I actually meant to say ‘under-represented’ which in fact they are , there are only a small number of Waitrose stores in the West Midlands area. Waitrose does have a certain brand reputation so it will attract people from outside the area.
As it looks as though this debate might become increasingly banal I’ll leave it for now and watch the planning application with interest.
March 26th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
I came onto this site in the hope of learning more about the meeting last night, as I couldn’t attend. Unfortunately there is no mention as of yet. Amongst other nonsense, one of the supporters has suggested that we could be offering suggestions to change the proposed plan. This would be a sheer waste of time at this stage. The plans have already been submitted. Isn’t it down to the planning commitee now?
What we can do, and must do, is expess our concerns. It doesn’t matter whether it’s already been said. The number of complaints will make a difference. There are probably more complaints on this thread than submitted on the councils website, though hopefully many have posted a letter in.
According to the coverage of the meeting on the silhillian blog site the Knowle Society are calling for us to use our democratic right as it is very important. I agree. Send an email to our local councillors, the planning officers, the council planning comittee, the newspapers etc and encourage
your friend to do the same.
March 26th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Apologies, all I am trying to convey is that there is another view and that a lot of families see this as a positive step. Perhaps some sort of democratic vote or survey would confirm how the village really feels.
I can only site the example of my wifes home village in Yorkshire there has been some substantial development (all opposed) including a new M&S food store, some housing and better road links. Ten years ago their house prices were substantially lower than ours and now they are higher. I think all in the village are agreed it is now a great place to live.
Think about young families and the pace we are all forced to live at these days. Unfortunately many of us only get one or two days to do the shopping, clean the house and entertain the kids. Having better facilities on our doorstep would be good for community cohesion and the environment.
If the main concerns are parking and traffic why don’t you suggest Waitrose provide a shuttle bus service to transport people from residential areas to the store. This would be great for our elderley population, and they could see the benefits in their own revenue.
I am sorry if you think my point of view is nonsense but it is the reality of living/working in 2010 and preparing for the future.
March 28th, 2010 at 11:25 am
I would just like to register my strong protest against the proposed Waitrose development for many of the reasons that have been already been clearly highlighted by contributors to this forum. In my opinion:
1. The residents of Knowle do not need a second supermarket within the village. Whilist I’m certainly no fan of Tescos I believe that the existing supermarket is an appropriate size for the village and that, coupled with the other independent food retailers, residents are already reasonably well catered for in this respect. Whilst there is always room for improvement, I don’t believe a second supermarket is necessarily the answer, and certainly not of this scale. The Council (along with the continuing custom of the residents) should be encouraging and supporting more high quality independent food retailers into the village, not pandering to the supermarket ‘giants’.
2. The scale of the proposed new supermarket is clearly way beyond that required to serve Knowle residents, and it seems obvious to me that a Waitrose of this size would draw in many additional shoppers from beyond the village, particularly in the light of the rejection of the Sainsburys proposal in Dorridge. The resulting increase in traffic in and around the village does not bear thinking about. As has been previously highlighted, one only has to look at the current traffic in the village on a Saturday morning to imagine the extent of the problem that could result.
In my view the proposed new store would dominate the village and ultimately destroy its character. I for one, do not want to live in ‘Waitroseville’.
Taking a longer term view -and if I was being extremely cynical here - with the two Knowle and Dorridge supermarket developments one could almost imagine that Solihull Council have half an eye on the future residential development of this area. It has been stated after all that the area around Solihull is earmarked as a potential area for an extra 10,000 houses to be built. I’ve lived in and around Solihull for over 30 years and with the Monkspath and Hillfield developments I’ve seen the town (over)develop into the sprawling suburb of Birmingham it is today. I’d hate Knowle and Dorridge to become just another part of that sprawl.
March 30th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
This whole development is misleading in its approach. Knowle village centre is dated – but not in need of large-scale REDEVELOPMENT – and the developer has focused on delivering a Waitrose as though this is the only solution.
Offering the carrot of a desirable supermarket has detracted from the fact that this is a LARGE development more suited to a town than a village. In effect, it proposes moving the village around so it can be fitted in.
The proposal came in on the back of Knowle Conservation Area Appraisal Report – yet in no way does it fit in with backing onto a Conservation Area. The supermarket does not match in with historic plot size – both in footprint and height. It destroys garden space, increases traffic and importantly, does not address enhancement of many parts of the Conservation Area as identified in the Report. It makes no real changes to the Green, which could be developed as a real asset to the village, (though it cunningly includes this in its aerial plans).
Further it is seriously flawed in its provision of parking and access. There is inadequate parking space at present, yet this development removes spaces both on road and at the Red Lion car park, losing any ‘extra’ spaces it claims to provide. It is trying to squeeze the new village hall onto a less suitable longer, thinner footprint as it can not possibly afford to lose even one of its proposed car park spaces. With the increased traffic that the store is predicted to generate – both locally and from a wide area around South Solihull, how can a few extra spaces possibly cope with demand?
Again lorry delivery access down the High Street and into St John’s Close by the zebra crossing would be detrimental to an area very well used by pedestrians. The ‘new’ exit of the lorries onto Station Road shows a huge lack of appreciation of the local area: it is presently difficult for a car to turn left this way without steering into the opposite lane – for a lorry to do this would be impossible.
At the recent public meeting, it was clear that residents of all ages living in St John’s Close are deeply concerned at the proposal and how it would impose on their community. From the knocking down and fragmenting of community housing to the noise, traffic and congestion that would affect all residents.
In brief, this development is too large, not in keeping with a village, nor the adjacent Conservation Area, will cause congestion and does not provide adequate parking which will have a detrimental affect on the village centre and nearby residential roads.
March 30th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
I am wholly in favour of a Waitrose store in Knowle. I should say that my late wife worked for John Lewis Partnership. I am tired , at times, of having to use the shambles that is Tesco, they probably do not care, as they also own One-Stop and have a monopoly on most household purchases in Knowle.
This is a time of consultation and doubtless many worries will be resolved before anything is written in stone.
The thing that concerned me at last week’s meeting was that fact that 75% or more of the attendees were at least 65. The meeting held at that time of day on a week day unfortunatly meant that the younger householders would not be truly represented. There are at at least two other generations who must also be considered.
Should the redevelopment not go ahead, where does it leave us 10 or 15 years down the line? A village hall 65 years old and a run down , uncared for infrastructure and the chance of the Council forcing through their own redevelopment with their very own agenda. Better to get things right now with what does to be basically a reasonable plan rather suffer an imposed solution.
Finally, I would say as a resident since 1972, that Knowle is not just a village (it has not been just that since the 70’s) but is a thriving business community. It really does deserve a new thought on it’s future.
March 30th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Doug’s point about the attendance profile of the public consultation couldn’t be more valid. Younger people in the village will be more time precious and possibly more socially apathetic. If the village was split 50/50 at the first meeting I would suggest this would equate to far more being in favour in reality.
I think it would really help this process if we conducted a door to door survey throughout the village. If the Knowle Society was bold enough to front this initiative I would be happy to help. I am sure we could get it completed with the help of volunteers.
March 31st, 2010 at 12:32 pm
I’m a younger person, I have two very small children. I’m not in favour of the scheme at all, and neither are a lot of “younger people” i know. On the other hand, some people, including those who to live their live at 100 miles an hour might not have the time to give the facts the level of consideration deserved. I don’t see the benefit of bringing Knowle up to the rat race speed of life. Good luck with your survey.
April 1st, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Knowle is a large place, I am sure there are people from all demographics with different views on this issue. I am not sure it is fair for either camp to impose their views on others without some form of process to find out the true level of feeling.
I am not sure a Waitrose and a new village hall constitutes the rat race.
April 1st, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Yes, Waitrose has a good brand image but do we need another supermarket in Knowle when there is already a branch of a major supermarket located in the ” commercial ” part of the centre.Yes, competition is good but if the proposal results in the closure of independent traders on the High Street and indeed the other supermarket, the result is a supermarket with no competition: indeed with a monopoly and with higher than average prices. I would not use Waitrose for my regular weekly shop as I wouldn’t shop at M and S for the same reasons. My main concern is the effect on the community, roads, pedestrians when the supermarket needs stock replenishment and we are bombarded by large delivery vehicles. All roads leading to Knowle will be affected and I echo other comments posted here: GRIDLOCK. It may actually drive the locals away to shop where they can park for free and have reeasonably sized car parking spaces.
April 3rd, 2010 at 12:07 am
I wrote a letter to the newspaper last week (Observer) stating our objections as a family to this proposal. In that letter I wrote that our shed is vital to us, as we live on St Johns Close, and that the new proposed bungalows threaten our home and the safety and enjoyment of it. The plans for the bungalows are encroaching onto our boundary at the side of our house that we rent from Solihull mbc, these plans appear to cut through our existing brick shed. The first we knew of these plans was when planning notification came through the post.
We called Julia Sykes to voice our concerns,who visited our property and agreed with us that the plans are not clearly stating where they want to build in relation to our boundary.
We were promised a speedy reponse as to why the developers have put plans forward that encroach onto our home. This was on the 16th March and still we have heard nothing, despite ringing her several times. I know she has to go back to the developer with various questions but this is extremely frustrating.
We asked Julia Sykes if the council would be willing to let our shed go in favour of the development of the bungalows, to which she said she didn’t know. Well we want answers, and deserve to be treated with respect. We have waited more than two weeks now with no reassurance from anyone and no clarification of the plans which is such a deflating feeling.
We were told to send in letters of objection for the 6th April, but feel there is a bias here as we do not know exactly what we are dealing with. It is only fair that we should be given all the correct details in order to respond accordingly.
It’s sad that families can be messed around by multiple companies. They obviously think they can just move the village around to suit their needs, with complete disregard for existing residents. It is even sadder that the local council can put us through this stress. How can this be allowed to happen? We pay our rent, council tax etc, and my husband and I work hard, and enjoy our life here. We feel that because we do not own the house, it is thought by these people with the power that it is alright to push us around like we do not matter. As far as we are concerned the council have badly let us down. These houses were let out to give people the right to decent housing and to enable them to enjoy a decent standard of living, however the last few weeks have been a terrible worry for our family, and yet they’ve taken their rent as usual. We are just a number to them. It seems that the developers are dangling a big fat carrot in front of them. We want to know to what cost will the council allow this to go ahead?
As a family, we feel so powerless against this with noone to represent us and other unhappy residents that we have spoken with. I agree with what somone posted about the need for people to send in complaints and not just post them on here. Objections need to go to Julia Sykes, but Solihull mbc tenants also have to write in and object to the usual address at Meriden Drive, as apparantly they have been told that the tenants have no objections!! The chair man of Solihull mbc will raise our concerns in meetings but you must write in!
We went along to the meeting last week at Arden school, and I got up and spoke, but didn’t feel able to fully say all of our objections as we were told to keep it brief. There were people there that didn’t even get to have their say, despite having their hands up and waiting patiently. This is very unfair. Why be invited to a meeting if we are not given the opportunity to raise all of our concerns.
I am pleased that I wrote into the paper, and tried to highlight various views of many residents that we have spoken to that object to the plans. I raised some important flaws in the selfish plans, like the increased dangerous traffic this build would bring. I also raised the point of an elderly person’s window being completely overshadowed by the build, as well as what it would do to our home.
When the weekly paper arrived yesterday I was extremely saddened and offended by a response to my letter in the paper. This person clearly lacks empathy for others. We are baffled as to how anyone could write that they have read with ‘bemusement’ the objections, and to write that ‘ someone even wrote to protect their shed’ is simply heartless, and goes against the community spirit that exists in this village. If that person reads this, I would ask you to consider how you would feel if your home was threatened? Would you be happy to recieve plans that cut through your shed? Would you see it as acceptable for a multiple company to behave without consideration of you and your neighbours?
I just wish that people kept an open mind, and held back on sweeping assumptions without knowing the details. The person that wrote that obviously thinks it is just a shed, but they do not understand the full implications of how the build would upset us in our home. Firstly it’s the principle of it, that globalisation threatens Knowle in every way and plans to destroy all in it’s path. Secondly, our shed is not just a shed for us. This person mentioned the disabled and mothers. Well I’m a mother to four young children and one has a long term disability. Having had various assessments and meetings, Solihull mbc agreed to convert our shed into a bedroom on medical grounds for our child. This would have been built imminently had it not been for this build. Now the plans are on hold as we await a response. How do you explain to your children this injustice? How can greedy developers do this without care for people living within a boundary, and why have we not had any support on this matter from the local council. We have a six week old daughter, who we should be able to just enjoy, and we should be able to enjoy this Easter holiday as a family, but instead the weekend will be spent writing letters of objection, and wondering what the future holds for our family and this village.
We will fight this all the way, we are totally disgusted at the underhanded appraoch of these developers. Whether they are cutting into our boundary or just planning on blocking our light and invade our privacy, we will fight this. We have had no fore warning, departments of solihull mbc obviously didn’t as they have planned to convert our existing shed for us. Now our calls are not being returned as they have put the plans on hold as they wait to hear what is happening, meanwhile we still have a medical need. If they take our shed as part of the development we will still have a medical need for the extra room, so what will they do with us because we won’t be moved out for developers!
It’s heart breaking having a child with a disability, and it’s heart breaking this is now happening. We just want a quiet life in a peaceful village. I would rather wrestle the isles of tesco than the roads with the traffic. I fear for my children if this goes ahead as well as the wider village. Surely improvements could be made in other ways.
We would like to get get in touch with our local MP about this, if anyone has any contact numbers or supportive advice we’d be really grateful. Sorry for any spelling mistakes, our baby’s not yet sleeping through, and having to go through all this is rather draining.
Donna
April 3rd, 2010 at 12:21 am
I also read this on the internet and copied and pasted it as it may be of interest for some.
Waitrose has been the winner of many plaudits for its policies on local sourcing and environmental sustainability, and its customers have been happy to pay higher prices for their goods. But the growth of Waitrose, which aims to double annual sales in the next decade, poses a bigger threat to the future of independent delicatessens and farm shops than Tesco, Asda and Sainsbury’s, according to a report published this week.
A survey for the Guild of Fine Foods - whose 618 members represent around 25% of the deli and farm shop sector in the UK - revealed that two-thirds of the store owners said they considered Waitrose to be more of a worry than any other retail chain, and three out of five store owners thought that Waitrose’s programme of expansion was bad news.
The guild’s director, Bob Farrand, said: “Waitrose actively mimics delis and farm shops with speciality and locally sourced foods, but often at lower prices because of its buying power. There’s no doubt it’s more of a threat than, say, Tesco or Asda.
April 3rd, 2010 at 1:25 pm
I read Mrs Hill’s letter in the Observer last week, I had a great deal of sympathy. I now have even more. This is not just about a shed, as we all know. I wonder whether these people are being deliberately obtuse, or are they really that unkind and insensitive? As far as supporters of the scheme go…… well, it takesall sorts, but I’ve been dissapointed in the small number of people who give an impression of having a complete and total disregard for others, including the elderly. No sign compassion whatsovever, but more worrying is the tone of anger.
I know this is a very worrying time, but I have a genuine belief that our councillors will serve us well, we must make them aware of our feelings. Ward Counciller Diana Holl Allen has a letter in the Solihull news this week asking for opinions to be sent to herself. Why not email all of these people…. dhollallen@solihull.gov.uk, jpotts@solihull.gov.uk,arebeiro@solihull.gov.uk. The post above about the Guild of Fine Foods is really interesting, another good argument to add to the already strong reasons to get this scheme kicked out!
Let’s stay positive, more letters to the papers too!
Congratulations on your new baby Mrs Hill.
April 3rd, 2010 at 3:04 pm
Thank you, it means a lot to our family to recieve some support. I have just left a post on the bungalow forum bit too if anyone wants to read and add any comments to that. Have a good weekend all, We are keeping our chins up. I will send views to Diana Holl, thank you so much.
April 8th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
There is a link/article on thesilhillian.blogspot.com today, well worth a quick read, saying that Caroline Spelman is questioning the development. This has to be encouraging.
April 24th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Hi, I feel very disappointed and saddened at the proposal of another super-market in Knowle. I only shop there occasionally but I love the way Knowle has stood still in time. It’s lovely to see small family
businesses, everybody seems so helpful and friendly, which creates a lovely, friendly atmosphere. It reminds me of an old fashioned village, which are rapidly disappearing in this day and age. My real sentiments are: my home is in Ilfracombe, North Devon. less than five years ago the same thing happened there- A proposal of a big chain super-store was presented, which received a lot of support from the local residents, including myself. The plans went ahead, forcing the smaller businesses out. The high street now mainly consists of boarded up empty shops, restaurants, charity and second hand shops. Don’t get me wrong, I haven’t got a problem with the latter but it’s nice to have a choice of shops…Also, because the shops have closed down- there’s not so much competition, which in return allows the super-market to put up their prices and charge what ever they like! and although it’s part of a big chain store, and One would think that prices would be the same, they are not!
So, please don’t just think about the near future for Knowle , but also the longer future. Because, once these changes go ahead there’s no turning back. You’ll just be left with the memories of how nice Knowle ones was!
Also, I’d just like to give my support to Mrs Hill, I’ve read all what she has to say, and yeah, I feel sorry for her, with all that business with the garden shed because it’s not just a shed! Plans were in progress for it to serve a much more needed cause, which would be of great benefit to the whole of the family. Thus, Mrs Hill has shown concern, not just for herself but to the whole of the community in Knowle, especially towards the old lady having her light blocked…So, I wish Mrs Hill and all those who are opposed to the developmental plans- good luck in getting them turned!!
April 25th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
THE ATTRACTION OF WAITROSE ?
The proposals for Knowle are based on the premise that the current appearance of the village from St. John’s Close is cluttered and unattractive. So, what do we have at present? Looking from left to right: first we see the Post Office building; then the car park next to Village Hall and the view behind of the Precinct and another car park; then the Village Hall itself; next is the roadway leading to two small car parks; finally the row of Community Bungalows. Now, what are the wonderful changes that will enhance all our lives? The Post Office building will remain; also the car park (now next to the Store) with the view behind to the Precinct; the Hall will be replaced by the much larger Store; the roadway and the bungalows will be replaced by a large car park, with views beyond of new bungalows and new Hall squeezed into the far right.
This is supposed to be an improvement? To my mind the proposals do not address the issues of clutter or attractiveness, and will look much worse than the current street scene.
There are some who say that we must accept the proposals because we will not get a better deal. This is coercion by the back door. We should not be prepared to accept second best, but must work with the developers to devise a plan that primarily respects and meets the needs of the people who live in Knowle, rather than the grandiose schemes of investors.
July 13th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Since the proposals were made I have been looking around various areas in the U K at retail shopping facilities, especially bearing in mnd the size of Knowle in my deliberations. Two specific locations, although bigger than Knowle, have similar socio-economic groups to those of Knowle. These are Fleet in Hampshire and Kenilworth in Warwickshire. The former had a new Waitrose store two years ago and the later slightly longer.
Fleet has one shopping street with Waitrose positioned at the rear very close to residential property with a car park that can only accomodate 50 vehicles, which has never been full on visits because the largest majority of clientele walk for their shopping.
Kenilworth now has atriving High Street after being in the doldrums some five years ago. In fact one shop owner last week explained how pleased he was to see both a new independant grocer open and a W H Smith. He stated that also that Woolworths was under offer and all this is because of the arrival of Waitrose in the town.
Do we want our Highb Street to die? Think about the future more carefully before condeming any future development.