Click the headline or link below to read the rest of this story.
A statement said of the plan for Forest Court: “While we agree that the proposal is larger than might be appropriate, we believe that the benefits of the redevelopment outweigh the risks.”
It added: “We do not want Dorridge to be just a housing estate, we want a centre with life.”
A planning application was submitted last month for a 1,812sqm sales area store, 26 per cent smaller than a plan rejected by Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council in March 2010.
The DDRA says it has concerns about an increase in traffic from the store but says these could be addressed through setting “targets” for Sainsbury’s.
It said: “We find the majority of people we speak to are in favour of the store and they have not found a voice and so we felt it necessary to balance the debate.”
But it said: “We feel that it is better to go with a compromise scheme with Sainsbury's listening, than to risk the site being blighted for several years.”
The group said it had tried for a decade for “a smaller redevelopment” by refurbishing or replacing Forest Court and supermarkets like Waitrose had been approached.
Six other shops units will be provided, four along Station Road, and two at the store front by the present steps of the shopping centre. A restaurant will be provided on the first floor.
It said: “We don't think that there is much prospect for a developer submitting an application for a smaller development.”
The council must get legally binding agreement on issues like delivery times, it said.
It said “traffic and parking continue to be a concern” and said: “We are not convinced that there is enough parking, but think that this is a useful constraint to stop Sainsbury's overtrading.”
Parking is “already a significant local problem” and Sainsbury’s should be set targets if traffic and parking cause problems, it said.
It said: “Many of the traffic problems we see at the moment are from local people who park and drive inconsiderately.
“The school car run is a national blight and not a sound reason to stop development. We are concerned that the pupils walking to school need to be protected from heavy traffic.”
Customer access would be via Avenue Road to a car park slightly higher than Forest Road, on top of the store.
This would provide 179 spaces compared to 213 under the store in the previous plan and 91 now. It could be full on Saturday morning, Sainsbury’s said.
It estimates some 224 vehicles will enter the site and 232 leave between 4.45pm and 5.45pm on Fridays, one of its busiest times, compared to 358 and 370 in the previous plan.
Click here for previous Sainsbury's stories.
The DDRA said a proposed seven large lorry and five small lorry deliveries a day is not “excessive” and pointed to now closed deliveries for Eveson’s coal yard on Station Road.
Sainsbury’s deliveries would come from the Warwick Road and Station Road and “cause less disturbance than the goods trains that run through the night”
And it said a change in planning laws will make it easier for the application to be passed – meaning the council could lose an appeal.
It said: “We have a Government who have announced a change in planning policy in
favour of development - 'The default answer is yes'."
The DDRA said a proposed seven large lorry and five small lorry deliveries a day is not “excessive” and pointed to now closed deliveries for Eveson’s coal yard on Station Road.
Sainsbury’s deliveries would come from the Warwick Road and Station Road and “cause less disturbance than the goods trains that run through the night”
And it said a change in planning laws will make it easier for the application to be passed – meaning the council could lose an appeal.
It said: “We have a Government who have announced a change in planning policy in
favour of development - 'The default answer is yes'."
The letter:
The Dorridge & District Residents Association (DDRA) have been listening to the community and reviewing the latest submission for the redevelopment of Dorridge centre into a supermarket. There is a wide range of views, but there is a consensus for rebuilding Forest Court.
While we agree that the proposal is larger than might be appropriate, we believe that the benefits of the redevelopment outweigh the risks. The DDRA tried for a decade to encourage a smaller redevelopment, either through refurbishment or replacement of Forest Court, but neither landowners nor supermarkets (including Waitrose) were able to come up with a viable scheme. Based on that experience, we don't think that there is much prospect for a developer submitting an application for a smaller development.
We accept the proposal is a compromise but we want to ensure that the Council get the right commitments from Sainsbury's; people are cynical about promises from large organisations so it would be best to have legally binding contracts for important commitments such as delivery times. Birmingham Airport gives an example of how to deal with problems: they pay into a community fund for breaches of flying restrictions.
The traffic and parking continue to be a concern, yet as we want to see the centre successfully redeveloped, we are clearly expecting people to travel to Dorridge. The Sainsbury's scheme has responded to several genuine problems with their interim scheme shown in January – we
guided Sainsbury's by showing that these were well-founded concerns not to be ignored or argued away, and they have responded with improvements to their design. We are not convinced that there is enough parking, but think that this is a useful constraint to stop Sainsbury's overtrading. We need SMBC, Sainsbury's and Chiltern to work together to resolve the parking issues that are already a significant local problem to ensure that traders elsewhere in Dorridge can thrive. We think that Sainsbury's should have targets set so that if parking and traffic cause problems then they are obliged to fund further improvements.
Many of the traffic problems we see at the moment are from local people who park and drive inconsiderately. The school car run is a national blight and not a sound reason to stop development. We are concerned that the pupils walking to school need to be protected from heavy traffic (especially Arden pupils who overflow the pavements). This is not just a problem for Sainsbury's; we see issues with traffic on a daily basis. While morning deliveries in rush hour are obvious for Sainsbury's to avoid, we are still concerned about what enforceable undertakings can be agreed for school leaving time. Schools are working on safer routes and we expect SMBC to continue to support sensible initiatives.
We do not see the delivery volume as excessive. Those with memories of just a few years will remember that Dorridge had something of an industrial past. The Eveson's coal yard near Forest Court was a source of lorry traffic. Sainsbury's have acknowledged that the heavy lorries through Knowle do not mix with the High Street and are proposing to divert deliveries to come up the Warwick Road from the South/West.
These lorries are likely to cause less disturbance than the goods trains that run through the night. We would want late night, early morning and Sunday traffic minimised, again with contractual commitments.
We think that the road scheme will be a significant improvement and it addresses issues we see regardless of the development. While the focus has been on Poplar Road, where the call for retaining the island design has been heard and responded to, the realignment of the road should significantly help the currently unsafe exit from Station Approach. While we would have liked to retain the mature trees (being an issue that concerns us across the borough), we believe that the concerns over the state of the existing trees are well founded and the replacement scheme for large trees in the road again responds to concerns raised by the
community. The removal of the roundabout outside the station has potential to resolve some significant safety concerns, not just for drivers, but for pedestrians who have to step into the
road to see traffic coming up the hill.
The expansion of the doctor's surgery is welcome. The drawings of the frontage and surgery do look attractive to us, and we must acknowledge that Sainsbury's have gone a long way to hiding the store away and providing the potential to create an interesting centre. We do not want Dorridge to be just a housing estate, we want a centre with life.
There is still detail to investigate and check. We are engaging a traffic consultant to ensure that Sainsbury's numbers and traffic designs are valid and will challenge any issues found. We still will look critically at aspects such as the lighting of the car park to ensure that everything is done to make sure its impact is minimal on the surrounding area. Has enough thought been put into pedestrian access, especially for the less mobile? Accepting the development in principle does not stop us from continuing to review it critically.
We find the majority of people we speak to are in favour of the store and they have not found a voice and so we felt it necessary to balance the debate. DROVS have provided a strong voice for those opposed, and we welcome their contribution to the debate. We feel that it is better to go with a compromise scheme with Sainsbury's listening, than to risk the site
being blighted for several years. We also are aware that there is a changing planning landscape behind this: SMBC will be nervous of an appeal after their Shirley knock-back, (especially with an existing report that recommended approval of the previous larger scheme), but also we have a Government who have announced a change in planning policy in favour of development - “The default answer is yes.” We believe that a rejection based on lobbying rather than sound planning grounds would be readily defeated at appeal. Regardless of our comments, what is important is that the planning committee are seen to have listened carefully to all points of view so that those who disagree with the decision can accept it was properly made.
Finally, we must emphasise that we have little influence on the decision making committee and urge all residents for and against to make their views known to the Council individually.
Yours faithfully,
Ian Spencer
Chairman
Dorridge & District Residents Association
What do you think? Leave your comments below. No registration required. Posts must abide by the terms and conditions. Report comments at news@thesilhillian.co.uk.
The Dorridge & District Residents Association (DDRA) have been listening to the community and reviewing the latest submission for the redevelopment of Dorridge centre into a supermarket. There is a wide range of views, but there is a consensus for rebuilding Forest Court.
While we agree that the proposal is larger than might be appropriate, we believe that the benefits of the redevelopment outweigh the risks. The DDRA tried for a decade to encourage a smaller redevelopment, either through refurbishment or replacement of Forest Court, but neither landowners nor supermarkets (including Waitrose) were able to come up with a viable scheme. Based on that experience, we don't think that there is much prospect for a developer submitting an application for a smaller development.
We accept the proposal is a compromise but we want to ensure that the Council get the right commitments from Sainsbury's; people are cynical about promises from large organisations so it would be best to have legally binding contracts for important commitments such as delivery times. Birmingham Airport gives an example of how to deal with problems: they pay into a community fund for breaches of flying restrictions.
The traffic and parking continue to be a concern, yet as we want to see the centre successfully redeveloped, we are clearly expecting people to travel to Dorridge. The Sainsbury's scheme has responded to several genuine problems with their interim scheme shown in January – we
guided Sainsbury's by showing that these were well-founded concerns not to be ignored or argued away, and they have responded with improvements to their design. We are not convinced that there is enough parking, but think that this is a useful constraint to stop Sainsbury's overtrading. We need SMBC, Sainsbury's and Chiltern to work together to resolve the parking issues that are already a significant local problem to ensure that traders elsewhere in Dorridge can thrive. We think that Sainsbury's should have targets set so that if parking and traffic cause problems then they are obliged to fund further improvements.
Many of the traffic problems we see at the moment are from local people who park and drive inconsiderately. The school car run is a national blight and not a sound reason to stop development. We are concerned that the pupils walking to school need to be protected from heavy traffic (especially Arden pupils who overflow the pavements). This is not just a problem for Sainsbury's; we see issues with traffic on a daily basis. While morning deliveries in rush hour are obvious for Sainsbury's to avoid, we are still concerned about what enforceable undertakings can be agreed for school leaving time. Schools are working on safer routes and we expect SMBC to continue to support sensible initiatives.
We do not see the delivery volume as excessive. Those with memories of just a few years will remember that Dorridge had something of an industrial past. The Eveson's coal yard near Forest Court was a source of lorry traffic. Sainsbury's have acknowledged that the heavy lorries through Knowle do not mix with the High Street and are proposing to divert deliveries to come up the Warwick Road from the South/West.
These lorries are likely to cause less disturbance than the goods trains that run through the night. We would want late night, early morning and Sunday traffic minimised, again with contractual commitments.
We think that the road scheme will be a significant improvement and it addresses issues we see regardless of the development. While the focus has been on Poplar Road, where the call for retaining the island design has been heard and responded to, the realignment of the road should significantly help the currently unsafe exit from Station Approach. While we would have liked to retain the mature trees (being an issue that concerns us across the borough), we believe that the concerns over the state of the existing trees are well founded and the replacement scheme for large trees in the road again responds to concerns raised by the
community. The removal of the roundabout outside the station has potential to resolve some significant safety concerns, not just for drivers, but for pedestrians who have to step into the
road to see traffic coming up the hill.
The expansion of the doctor's surgery is welcome. The drawings of the frontage and surgery do look attractive to us, and we must acknowledge that Sainsbury's have gone a long way to hiding the store away and providing the potential to create an interesting centre. We do not want Dorridge to be just a housing estate, we want a centre with life.
There is still detail to investigate and check. We are engaging a traffic consultant to ensure that Sainsbury's numbers and traffic designs are valid and will challenge any issues found. We still will look critically at aspects such as the lighting of the car park to ensure that everything is done to make sure its impact is minimal on the surrounding area. Has enough thought been put into pedestrian access, especially for the less mobile? Accepting the development in principle does not stop us from continuing to review it critically.
We find the majority of people we speak to are in favour of the store and they have not found a voice and so we felt it necessary to balance the debate. DROVS have provided a strong voice for those opposed, and we welcome their contribution to the debate. We feel that it is better to go with a compromise scheme with Sainsbury's listening, than to risk the site
being blighted for several years. We also are aware that there is a changing planning landscape behind this: SMBC will be nervous of an appeal after their Shirley knock-back, (especially with an existing report that recommended approval of the previous larger scheme), but also we have a Government who have announced a change in planning policy in favour of development - “The default answer is yes.” We believe that a rejection based on lobbying rather than sound planning grounds would be readily defeated at appeal. Regardless of our comments, what is important is that the planning committee are seen to have listened carefully to all points of view so that those who disagree with the decision can accept it was properly made.
Finally, we must emphasise that we have little influence on the decision making committee and urge all residents for and against to make their views known to the Council individually.
Yours faithfully,
Ian Spencer
Chairman
Dorridge & District Residents Association
What do you think? Leave your comments below. No registration required. Posts must abide by the terms and conditions. Report comments at news@thesilhillian.co.uk.
Click here to get stories by email.
