23 Newton Rd
Knowle
Solihull
B93 9HL
01564 773894
13 November 2011
G. Palmer, Dip.TP, MRTPI
Head of Design and Development
PO Box 11652
Council Offices
Solihull
B91 9YA
Dear Mr Palmer,
PLANNING APPLICATIONS 2011/1555, 2011/1556, 2011/1557
ST JOHN’S CLOSE, KNOWLE
As you are aware, Knowle Society is carrying out a public consultation in connection with the above planning applications. Major elements in this consultation were public meetings held on Thursday 3rd November and Friday 4th November when approaching 300 people attended in total. In addition we have a forum running on our website and we are encouraging residents to submit their comments to us in writing.
As you will understand, analysis of this feedback is taking some time, so please accept this as the first stage of our response to the applications. For your information, the following aspect has been identified as one of particular concern by our members and other interested residents:-
- Car parking –
- The figures provided by the developers for the increase in parking spaces provided by the development do not describe the total impact of the development, particularly as they do not take into account the loss of on-street parking;
- Even on the information provided by the developers there would be insufficient additional parking to reasonably accommodate current demands, let alone the additional demand from shoppers to the proposed store;
- Once the inevitable increase in demand resulting from the proposed additional housing in the LDF Core Strategy is factored in, the situation would be even worse.
There are other important aspects that we will be commenting on as soon as we have gathered the information. At this stage I can only comment in detail on the car parking provision, but feel that this is of such major significance that they need fully testing as soon as possible. In order to help explain our concerns I am including three tables.
Table 1
PARKING PROVISION WEST OF KNOWLE HIGH STREET
CURRENT PROVISION / SITE / PROPOSED PROVISION264 / 257 / 236 / 226 / 60 / 60 / ‘TESCO’ / 60 / 60 / 241 / 264 / 302 / 305
102 / 43 / Village Hall north / 120
(Village Hall car parks) / 120
28 / Village Hall west
23 / Village Hall east
8 / Village Hall on road
64 / 34 / Nat West / 61
(‘Store’ car park) / 61
6 / Bungalowson road
24 / Red Lion
10 / 10 / 4 / St John’s on curve / 8 / 23 / 23
6 / St John’s on straight / 15
21 / 21 / 21 / 21 / Lodge Croft / 47 (-9 for staff) / 38 / 38 / 38
7 / 7 / 7 / 7 / 7 / Station Rd at delivery entrance / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3 / 3
Increase in provision / +18 / +15 / +28 / +45 / +41
This demonstrates the provision in the various car parks and on-road parking that will be affected by the proposals, adding each element in turn to the totals. The details are taken from the application documentation plus observations on site. As can be seen, if one takes into account all the various changes there is indeed an increase(albeit small) in provision.
However this does not take into account the additional load which the applicants state would be expected as a result of the store. This peaks at 50 on weekdays and exceeds the additional provision (41) from 10:00 – 17:00 on both weekdays and Saturdays. (Transportation Assessment - Appendix E).
It also does not take into account the acknowledged current problems with accessing aparking space, as demonstrated in the Transportation Assessment, which in Appendix D describes the current levels of use of the existing car parks, ranging from ‘full at times’ to ‘in excess of capacity at times’. This is supported by the ‘Combined parking profiles’ charts in Figures 3 & 4 that show clearly the entire existing car park provision as being at or very near completely full for significant parts of the day, suggesting that people are currently failing to park in the car parks and having to go elsewhere. This is supported by the current extent of local on-road parking.
I have illustrated this further in the following tables which show that, even with full use of Lodge Croft and the additional road edge parking the system will be in deficit or so close that grid-lock would be inevitable for much of the day.
The data in Appendix E, which purports to show that there will be sufficient car parking capacity (albeit only just) only takes into account the effect of removing the existing five formal car parks with a capacity of 188 spaces and replacing them with a single car park with a capacity of 241 spaces. It does not take into account the impact of the development on other parking provision.
Table 2 illustrates the true situation on ‘typical weekdays’ based on the data in Appendix E together with observations on site. It shows that the loss of the on-road spaces currently available, due to the lay-out of the new car park and the widening of the access for deliveries, results in there being a deficit of spaces between 11:00 and 17:00 of up to 38 spaces. Even if the additional spaces in PA 2011/1556 is taken into account there will still be a deficit over the same period of up to 25 spaces. The developers have acknowledged that the additional spaces in PA 2011/1555 at Lodge Croft are too far away to contribute to parking for the store (and thereby for any other shopping), but even if these are fully utilised (after the allowance of 9 spaces for staff) the provision is still completely inadequate.
Table 3 shows the situation on a ‘typical Saturday’. This is hardly any better, the provision still being inadequate under current demand and relying on full use being made of Lodge Croft.
TABLE 2'TYPICAL WEEKDAYS' - TRUE SITUATION OF CAR PARKING SPACES AFTER DEVELOPMENT
DATA FROM APPENDIX E / IMPACT OF LOSS OF SPACES DUE TO CREATION OF NEW CAR PARK / MITIGATION DUE TO ADDITIONAL PARKING ELSEWHERE
Time / Total demand in existing car parks / Capacity in new car park / Resulting spare places / Lost on-road spaces # / Capacity in new car park minus lost on-road spaces # / Resulting spare places / Lost spaces in Red Lion car park* / Capacity in new car park minus lost on-road and Red Lion spaces* / Resulting spare places / Plus increase from additional off-road parking on west side of St John's Close / Resulting spare places / Plus increase from Lodge Croft (allowing 9 spaces for staff) / Resulting spare places
07.00 - 08.00 / 42 / 241 / 199 / 18 / 223 / 181 / 24 / 199 / 157 / 13 / 170 / 17 / 187
08.00 - 09.00 / 58 / 241 / 183 / 18 / 223 / 165 / 24 / 199 / 141 / 13 / 154 / 17 / 171
09.00 - 10.00 / 157 / 241 / 84 / 18 / 223 / 66 / 24 / 199 / 42 / 13 / 55 / 17 / 72
10.00 - 11.00 / 190 / 241 / 51 / 18 / 223 / 33 / 24 / 199 / 9 / 13 / 22 / 17 / 39
11.00 - 12.00 / 229 / 241 / 12 / 18 / 223 / -6 / 24 / 199 / -30 / 13 / -17 / 17 / 0
12.00 - 13.00 / 237 / 241 / 4 / 18 / 223 / -14 / 24 / 199 / -38 / 13 / -25 / 17 / -8
13.00 - 14.00 / 222 / 241 / 19 / 18 / 223 / 1 / 24 / 199 / -23 / 13 / -10 / 17 / 7
14.00 - 15.00 / 233 / 241 / 8 / 18 / 223 / -10 / 24 / 199 / -34 / 13 / -21 / 17 / -4
15.00 - 16.00 / 230 / 241 / 11 / 18 / 223 / -7 / 24 / 199 / -31 / 13 / -18 / 17 / -1
16.00 - 17.00 / 221 / 241 / 20 / 18 / 223 / 2 / 24 / 199 / -22 / 13 / -9 / 17 / 8
17.00 - 18.00 / 160 / 241 / 81 / 18 / 223 / 63 / 24 / 199 / 39 / 13 / 52 / 17 / 69
18.00 - 19.00 / 118 / 241 / 241 / 18 / 223 / 105 / 24 / 199 / 81 / 13 / 94 / 17 / 111
# On-road spaces lost - 8 alongside Village Hall; 6 outside demolished bungalows; 4 from Station Rd at delivery entrance
* Red Lion spaces lost - 24
TABLE 3
'TYPICAL SATURDAY' - TRUE SITUATION OF CAR PARKING SPACES AFTER DEVELOPMENT
DATA FROM APPENDIX E / IMPACT OF LOSS OF SPACES DUE TO DEVELOPMENT / MITIGATION DUE TO ADDITIONAL PARKING ELSEWHERE
Time / Total demand in existing car parks / Capacity in new car park / Resulting spare places / Lost on-road spaces # / Capacity in new car park minus lost on-road spaces # / Resulting spare places / Lost spaces in Red Lion car park* / Capacity in new car park minus lost on-road and Red Lion spaces* / Resulting spare places / Plus increase from additional off-road parking on west side of St John's Close / Resulting spare places / Plus increase from Lodge Croft (allowing 9 spaces for staff) / Resulting spare places
07.00 - 08.00 / 35 / 241 / 206 / 18 / 223 / 188 / 24 / 199 / 164 / 13 / 177 / 17 / 194
08.00 - 09.00 / 54 / 241 / 187 / 18 / 223 / 169 / 24 / 199 / 145 / 13 / 158 / 17 / 175
09.00 - 10.00 / 162 / 241 / 79 / 18 / 223 / 61 / 24 / 199 / 37 / 13 / 50 / 17 / 67
10.00 - 11.00 / 215 / 241 / 26 / 18 / 223 / 8 / 24 / 199 / -16 / 13 / -3 / 17 / 14
11.00 - 12.00 / 226 / 241 / 15 / 18 / 223 / -3 / 24 / 199 / -27 / 13 / -14 / 17 / 3
12.00 - 13.00 / 225 / 241 / 16 / 18 / 223 / -2 / 24 / 199 / -26 / 13 / -13 / 17 / 4
13.00 - 14.00 / 203 / 241 / 38 / 18 / 223 / 20 / 24 / 199 / -4 / 13 / 9 / 17 / 26
14.00 - 15.00 / 188 / 241 / 53 / 18 / 223 / 35 / 24 / 199 / 11 / 13 / 24 / 17 / 41
15.00 - 16.00 / 199 / 241 / 42 / 18 / 223 / 24 / 24 / 199 / 0 / 13 / 13 / 17 / 30
16.00 - 17.00 / 182 / 241 / 59 / 18 / 223 / 41 / 24 / 199 / 17 / 13 / 30 / 17 / 47
17.00 - 18.00 / 137 / 241 / 104 / 18 / 223 / 86 / 24 / 199 / 62 / 13 / 75 / 17 / 92
18.00 - 19.00 / 115 / 241 / 241 / 18 / 223 / 108 / 24 / 199 / 84 / 13 / 97 / 17 / 114
# On-road spaces lost - 8 alongside Village Hall; 6 outside demolished bungalows; 4 from Station Rd at delivery entrance
* Red Lion spaces lost - 24
If this proposal was allowed to go through it could only be on the basis that it made a positive contribution to easing the current parking problems. It doesn’t do this but actually makes them worse.
I acknowledge that these calculations depend on the assumption that all the relevant existing on-road parking is in use (which observation will show that it very mostly is), and that the reduction in the Red Lion parking will result in the users of those spaces moving to the new provisions, which they must. The applicants have ignored these factors in their calculations, the Transportation Assessment only concerning itself with the formal car parks. This is either an error or a deliberate policy which has had the effect of flattering the proposals to the benefit of the developers.
I would request that you test my assumptions and calculations and would be very willing to explain my methodology if that would help. I would suggest that if they stand up to scrutiny, the proposal could not possibly go ahead without significant additional car parking provision.
We would also doubt the safety and effectiveness of the end-on parking off St John’s Close. While this would work if the roadway was part of the car park it is by no means such. Even traffic calming would not mitigate the hazards sufficiently as it is a two-way road which will be used by most of the traffic accessing the car parks and by lorries delivering to some of the High Street shops.
I will submit full comments on other aspects as soon as possible, having gained feedback from our members and others.
Best regards,
LT Jones
Leighton Jones
Chairman,
Knowle Society Planning Committee
Cc
Ms Julia Sykes, SMBC
Councillor Rebeiro
Councillor Potts
Councillor Holl-Allen
Philip Pearce, Kimberley Developments Ltd.