Dorridge & District Residents Association

There appears to be some confusion about the Planning Committee meeting timing. To avoid sitting into the late evening, the Committee Meeting was split into two sessions: a first session at 4:30pm which deals with items which are not open to public scrutiny or where nobody has expressed an interest to speak. There is then a break and a second session commences at 6pm which is the public session. Sainsbury's will undoubtedly be the first item on the agenda of this second session.

The Committee have reviewed the Officers Report and we have contacted the officers over some details that we would like to see addressed. Further, the Committee unanimously agreed that although we would not speak at the committee, we would send the following to the Committee:

SMBC have released their agenda for the 30th November and the Sainsbury's Application is to be considered. Officers have recommended approval. To save navigating the SMBC site it can be found here but there are a number of other documents on the main web site at item 7 on the agenda here. It will almost certainly be the first item on the agenda at a meeting at the Council House at 6:00pm.

Sainsbury's released a press release and their QC's opinion. The opinion can be found on the Sainsbury's site here. We currently expect the plan to be presented to committee on Wednesday the 30th Nov.

Sainsbury's have posted two documents on their site, here and here that have detailed responses to objections from various sources, including DROVS, Knowle Society and ourselves. The contents are not surprising, the main points being that they argue that the retail area of the store is not significantly different from Forest Court and that the principle of developing a significant shopping centre in Dorridge was determined at the point of building Forest Court. There is an explanation of why they believe the DROVS alternative is not satisfactory and a technical discussion on planning policy, which in part notes that there is a significant change in policy under the current administration which gives a presumption in favour of development.

We note that the confusion over the store size which gained some publicity recently was explained in detail in letters back in April and May, copies of which Sainsbury's have now published on their website as part of their response to SMBC.

While it is helpful to have this extra information, there are still issues which remain a concern as Sainsbury's have not really answered the question of how the rest of Dorridge functions satisfactorily if the car park is running at capacity.

In response to discussions of the application, SMBC have asked for some detailed changes to the scheme which are summarised here.

In the press recently there has been some discussion on the numbers presented by Sainsbury's. Although we have had clarification on this and asked Sainsbury's to properly explain the misunderstanding that had not yet been presented. Here is our understanding.

DROVS identified that the application form stated that there was a very large number of about 8000sqm on the application form representing the amount of permissions being sought. This was made up of the supermarket, together with permissions for different classes of use - this means that all the units are applied for under 5 different use classes - shops, financial services, hot food takeaways, drinking establishments and restaurants. Sainsbury's have explained that this is was because they did not want to limit what the usage was of any particular unit. So the development includes 1,239sqm of other retail space to be used for one of the 5 purposes listed.

The detail of the size of what is being developed is set out in the planning statement with the application. Key figures there are that the 3rd party space is 1239sqm made up of 7 units and two kiosks. The table on the application form does not represent the size of the development - it is "Non-residential floor space". The total size size is 2.1 hectares, (21000sqm) , 5 acres, where the gross supermarket retail area is given as 4,400sqm, around 25% of the site, of which 1800sqm is actual sales area.

The way the application form is written does raise the question of how SMBC should encourage a proper mix of development as it would be inappropriate to allow all of one type of development. However, SMBC can depend on the whole submission and the presentation of these numbers on the application form should not open any backdoors to extended development (though we have written to SMBC for them to confirm that).

The Committee discussed the issue of public meetings again in the light of comments received from some residents that they felt it would be useful.

While we recognise that there are clearly some misunderstandings about the scheme, for example as being discussed in the press, we do not believe that a public meeting would be a successful mechanism to resolve this. We feel that a meeting at this time would simply accentuate differences in the community rather than resolve them. For example, it is clear that a number of requests are based on the belief that people do not understand the scale of the development, yet it is hard to accept that over the 10 months since the scheme has been announced, those who support the scheme have not been exposed to the suggestion that they are misguided.

While it would be nice to think that the community would all get together and sort it out, the reality is that there is no prospect before the decision that Sainsbury's would withdraw their application based on the output of a public meeting.

We would note that our main reason for not holding a public meeting originally was that Sainsbury's did a number of presentations which we observed and we believe that residents of Dorridge were quite capable of forming an independent view based upon those presentations. It is clear that everyone is aware of the issues that concern those opposed to the scheme.

The application has been delayed. There appear to have been some issues which SMBC and Sainsbury's need more time to agree on.

There has been quite a bit of discussion recently about the size of the development, confused by the numbers on the application form suggesting it was an 8,000m2 development. The confusion stems from the application duplicating space for different types of use, so a restaurant needs different permission from a retail outlet. Sainsbury's have explained that although there appears to be a large amount of space on the application form, this is duplicated so that every unit can be a restaurant or a shop, so that they are not bound to a particular arrangement of stores at this early stage. There is a clear breakdown of the size of the additional units in the planning statement which shows that the total application area for peripheral stores is 1239m2 (which can be cross-checked by examining the plans), not the much larger figures suggested by taking the total application area. Whether it is appropriate to apply in this way will depend on whether the Planning Committee take the view that the mix of shops should be controlled in some way through these usage classes

It is unfortunate that Sainsbury's press release didn't properly clarify the source of this misunderstanding.

The application is now to be considered on either 9th November.

There has been recent publicity about a barrister's opinion on the planning saying that it was against policy. What does this mean?

Firstly, just because a Queen's Counsel state an opinion, it does not mean this is a matter of fact, it is just an opinion, although it should carry weight. For example, SMBC took Queen's Counsel advice on a footpath dispute through Arden School yet at appeal this opinion was overturned without the need for the applicant to seek legal advice. However, the planning guidance is not law, it has to be considered, it does not have to be followed. Also, the Government have announced that they are to cancel the guidance that this opinion relies on, so at the time of the decision, the Council can decide to take account of that announcement. The point of this commentary is that nobody should be under the illusion that because a legal opinion has been given, the decision is a foregone conclusion.

We have written to the Council. As we said in our previous comments, on balance we feel that the development is the best option that is likely to be available, however that it remains to be shown whether Sainsbury's have accounted for all the issued in a difficult development. Having taken professional advice, we believe that there is a problem to be resolved in organising the car parking and have written accordingly.

In summary, although we are generally supportive of the scheme, we are also quite clear that it should not go ahead until there is a resolution on how to resolve the issues of access to the surgery and the rest of Dorridge.

Our submission to the Council is here, the advice we received from the Traffic Consultant is here.

The application is likely to be considered on either 28th Sept. or 19th Oct., unless there are any significant delays due to the need to adapt the scheme to resolve any issues.

We have met to consider our views on the latest submission. We have come to a view that on balance the current development, while not ideal, can be made to work. You can read the full text of our position here.

DDRA were given a presentation of a number of updates the scheme that was presented in January where Sainsbury's have sought to address the major substantive objections to the scheme. They have also met with DROVS and other local representatives. The scale and fundamentals of the scheme remain the same but there were some interesting changes that appeared to successfully address some major issues raised by a significant number of residents.

The road scheme has been significantly updated. The proposal is that Station Road is narrowed, taking out the current islands, but in their place there is a planting of a pair of semi-mature trees, selected for form and for stature in small islands. So the concept of a dual carriageway remains, but the road is re-aligned. Further investigation shows that the current trees do not have a good environment and it would be unlikely that alternative planting could succeed while preserving the existing trees. DDRA see no reason to disagree with the analysis and think that the replacement plan has much to recommend it.

We see that there are significant benefits in that realignment which should significantly improve the visibility exiting Station Approach. With regards to Poplar Road, a realignment there should allow two cars to queue turning left and two cars to queue turning right at the same time, significantly improving traffic flow at that junction at school time. Further, Sainsbury's are undertaking to fund the works at the station to create a better pedestrian area, create the space for Chiltern to remodel the station with a canopy, and improve the safety of the junction with Station Approach and Avenue Road. We have asked that the informal drop-off system that works well at the station is preserved in this remodelling.

There is no proposal to change the store size, and there were some detail changes to the treatment of the store front to remove the dominant sky sign and add an architectural feature of a clock – small touches which made a difference. Sainsbury's emphasised that there was no hidden expansion plan and that there was nothing in the architecture to facilitate that. Further, they were happy that the planning consent should specifically restrict their retail area, given that there might be concerns on the apparent excess of supporting space.

Sainsbury's are now proposing to route their deliveries along the A46, across to the Five Ways Island (the big roundabout on the Warwick Road south of Chadwick End) and up through Chadwick End and into Station Road. This avoids the mix of lorries and Knowle High Street.

The DDRA committee would like to acknowledge that Sainsbury's have put genuine effort in to resolving significant issues which may well satisfy those residents who supported the scheme in principle but had concerns over the changes to the road layout. It still remains to be seen whether the traffic case is robust.

Sainsbury's expect to finish refining the plan shortly and will be submitting their application imminently. It is expected to take two to three months from then before it gets to committee. We would like to emphasise that even if letters are sent out by the Council suggesting that there are 21 days to comment, SMBC policy is to accept comments up to the point of the committee meeting, and nobody should feel that they will not be able to comment due to the summer holidays – it is likely to be September before it is considered by the Planning Committee. Sainbury's understand this concern and are not seeking to hurry through the application at a time difficult for people to respond.

We accept that while there are some people who are fundamentally opposed to the concept of supermarket shopping in a village environment, there are others who look forward to such an approach and so we still feel we should neither promote nor oppose the scheme, and any positive comments about the revisions should be taken in that context and are not intended to indicate approval for the scheme as a whole.

A very large number of people (around 800 each day we believe) attended the exhibition. Sainsbury's had a large number of senior representatives present and the displays seemed to provide people with a good insight into the scheme. From the visitors book comments, listening to the conversations around the model and discussions with people we have a view on the main issues. DDRA have a committee meeting this week and based on what we have seen will announce our next steps.

We are especially interested in hearing from people who have new insights after having seen the presentation. Over the last few days we heard some interesting comments which showed that people had given a great deal of thought to what was presented. We hope to get access to the feedback information once it has been collated and made anonymous. It was noticeable that people were writing detailed comments in support of their general position whether they were for or against the development so there is a lot of interesting information to review.

Sainsbury's have produced a new design for the Forest Court site and will be delivering a booklet describing the development to local homes this week.

The plans are available on the Sainsbury's Dorridge web site from Wednesday. The plans will also be on display in Forest Court. On Friday 4th February 9.00am - 6.00pm and Saturday 5th February 9.00am - 5.00pm Sainsbury's will be present to discuss the revised plans. As always Sainsbury's can be contacted through Amy Kershaw on Sainsbury's freephone: 0800 975 5299.

Sainsbury's allowed the DDRA committee a preview of the plans on Monday, where representatives of the doctors' surgery were present.

While we have not had time to examine the detail of the plans and the implications of the changes, it is clear that Sainsbury's have made a genuine effort to address issues raised over the last 18 months and we would urge all residents to view the plans with an open mind.

The doctors have told us that they are extremely pleased with what Sainsbury's have offered to do with the surgery, which will remain in the same place but be radically modernised and expanded.

It is really important to the committee that we get the sense of what people are feeling about the new development, so please get in touch with any of the committee members. (See our About page for contacts and of course email is an easy way to drop a quick note of your thoughts.

DDRA are committed to ensuring that the voices of all residents are heard in the planning process, whether for or against the development and so if you have any concern that you wish to ensure is properly addressed, please get in touch and we will do our best to ensure that your thoughts are presented to the Council in the most effective way regardless of our personal views.

Sainsbury's held a further workshop to explore the results of their questionnaire which is available on the Dorridge Sainsbury's site (see links on the right). In the current newsletter we have summarised our understanding of the presentation and the Chairman has summarised his views on the state of play which can be found here

Sainsbury's held a workshop for around 35 people who gave up their Saturday to help find a way forward with the development. Ian Spencer attended to see how it was run. His impressions were that there was a good cross-section of the community (the younger members of the community a bit under-represented perhaps) and it was clear from the day that the full spectrum of opinion was represented. The doctor's surgery was represented.

It was also clear that all the participants came with a constructive attitude and although the result was essentially a realisation that developing the site was a difficult problem to solve, participants reported that they felt that it had been a satisfying experience. It was good to note that participants were very conscious of not wanting to speak for the community, but were prepared to think through the implications of the alternatives. It was also helpful that Sainsbury's cleared the air on a couple of contentious issues and everyone came away with a sense that Sainsbury's were being genuine in this exercise, though recognising that there were no promises on the table.

Attached here is a PDF of the slides that were made up by Sainsbury's of the notes, including a concept sketch where the Sainsbury's architect explored the possibilities of a smaller store, while attempting to create a central social area. It is extremely important to note that there were some significant unresolved issues and this sketch only represented a concept, not a solution.

It might be a little unfair to highlight specific issues that came out, but the feeling of the meeting was that Sainsbury's were open to a smaller development; that the removal of the dual carriageway is contentious for a number of reasons, but there are a number of benefits to be gained if the concerns can be allayed; Sainsbury's accepted that the failure to respond to the concerns about the core features of the development had undermined trust; and that there were a number of different avenues to explore on the doctor's surgery but there were significant constraints on which approaches would be financially viable for the surgery.

The next steps are for Sainsbury's to collate the results of the survey (over 800 responses - far higher than Sainsbury's expected but in line with the sort of response we have had to other important local issues - thank you!), for Sainsbury's to use this to inform how they can move ahead.

Sainsbury's have published a survey to attempt to find a way forward in redeveloping a site.

The survey has not gone as smoothly as Sainsbury's hoped due to an unfortunate failure to deliver the survey properly. If you haven't filled the survey in because you think it will be too late, think again, it is still worth sending it in. Simply returning the survey sends a message that Dorridge residents are interested in their community.

We have had some debate on the issues of surveys and whether we should have taken the initiative but with no obvious alternatives to a Sainsbury's development, a properly open survey of what people would like to happen is simply raising false expectations. We felt that a Sainsbury's led initiative was more appropriate in those circumstances. Our involvement was simply to help the survey work by reviewing the questions and we would encourage residents to respond. We are aware that the survey has its limitations, but hopefully it will allow Sainsbury's to gain a sense of where the scheme can be amended.

The workshop came out of a suggestion from a Dorridge resident and recognised that surveys are good for involving people but not good for getting in depth thinking. The workshops are something of an experiment and Ian Spencer, Chairman, will attend to observe how the workshop functions. There will be an independent moderator. A large number of people have committed time to attending the workshops, so we hope that they will provide some quality thinking to allow Sainsbury's to come up with a practical approach. Hopefully some of the contradictions that we have observed, for example, where people want convenient shopping but do not want the local disruption, can be explored and a balanced approach identified.

In response to the letter, we decided that the best thing to do was to meet with Sainsbury's to understand what was the scope for discussion. The result of the meeting was that we found Sainsbury's were prepared to consider alternative approaches. Together with the Chairman of DROVS, we agreed a consultation approach that should allow everyone in Dorridge and Bentley Heath to be aware of what was happening. Also it is planned to have a workshop to allow a reasonable number of people to have an input to see how we could find an acceptable compromise between Sainsbury's desires for a significant retail development and the residents' concerns that the impact of this would be inappropriate. Notes of the minutes can be found here.

We recently received a letter from Sainsbury's asking for feedback on what we thought was required. We had a committee meeting to consider how to respond. We have responded by welcoming their further interest, and asked that they meet with us. We felt that the letter did not give us enough information to respond and that our most appropriate role was to facilitate Sainsbury's communication with the community rather than to attempt to speak for the community which has a diverse and potentially contradictory range of views. We hope to meet Sainsbury's in the next couple of weeks.

As ever we are keen to have your personal views. What would you want to say to Sainsbury's? Let us know.

We also are meeting with DROVS as it seems appropriate to see if we have a consensus on what the next steps should be.

As Chairman, I have written up where we see the current situation of the site.

In summary, I remind us that Sainsbury's control the site even as Forest Court, so it is their responsibility to look after the current site and also to move things on.

We are not actively seeking a response from Sainsbury's, but will welcome any communication at such time they are ready to discuss their future plans.

The planning application has been refused by the Planning Committee, on the grounds of scale (lack of parking, size and impact on the local centre) and design. (I have not got the exact wording as yet, and won't publish a misleading version).

Speakers were excellent - the committee rose to the occasion.

What happens next? The ball is in Sainsbury's court - they can appeal, but in view of the strength of feeling, it is likely that they will have to have a good hard think and see what they can do to bridge the gap. We hope that they will be professional enough to respond sensibly and sensitively and DDRA will certainly be encouraging them to have a positive dialogue about practical solutions.

What we do have to accept is that any redevelopment will be delayed.

The planning application has been refused by the Planning Committee, on the grounds of scale (lack of parking, size and impact on the local centre) and design. (I have not got the exact wording as yet, and won't publish a misleading version).

Speakers were excellent - the committee rose to the occasion.

What happens next? The ball is in Sainsbury's court - they can appeal, but in view of the strength of feeling, it is likely that they will have to have a good hard think and see what they can do to bridge the gap. We hope that they will be professional enough to respond sensibly and sensitively and DDRA will certainly be encouraging them to have a positive dialogue about practical solutions.

What we do have to accept is that any redevelopment will be delayed.

The planning meeting will be held in the Council House Chambers at 6:00pm Wednesday. It is likely, if there are many attendees that the meeting will be held in the main Council Chamber, otherwise it is in Committee Room 1. You can normally park in the Council Car Park accessed via the Touchwood drop off point above the Church Hill car park.

If you are walking from Touchwood, assume you leave Touchwood from the central display area out towards the pickup point (towards the church), out of the door, turn right and walk down past the barrier to the Council Offices car park. At the botom of the hill, turn left and the building is ahead on the right. Follow the crowds or ask the receptionist where to go.

If you come from the Church Hill car park, walk up the stairs at the rear and come out in the Council car park (the top layer is accessed from the Council entrance). Walk up the slope towards the main council buildings, then turn left and the building is on the left.

I have reviewed the officer's report and received a number of additional pieces of information which I am passing onto SMBC. It occurs to me that there is a misunderstanding about the planning process and some people believe that there is a possibility of negotiation when the decision is made. The Planning Committee can only consider what is in front of them and cannot modify the plans to suit - so if there are problems, the process is that they must reject the plans. It will be clear to Sainsbury's if the reasons for rejection are minor that they should return with a similar scheme to address the points raised or that they should revise the scheme more substantially - or appeal.

While we want to see Forest Court redeveloped, it is important that the redevelopment is appropriate. One element of being confident that the redevelopment is appropriate is ensuring that the Councillors making the decision are fully informed. They rely on the officer's report to summarise the arguments for and against. We are concerned that the report does not explain to the Committee some of the problems around parking, HGV access (including where the legal liability for roads that are not constructed to withstand HGV usage falls), complete lack of staff parking with no obvious alternative site proposed, and, assuming the trees are to be removed from in front of the store, a lack of replacements of similar stature in the long term. Given the level of objection, it is important that if the development is to be approved, objectors can at least be sure that their arguments have been fairly considered.

An unusual feature of the application is that because it is outside a town centre, the Secretary of State has advised Councils that he may wish to review it. SMBC have made an odd interpretation of his circular, so representations have been made to ensure that the Secretary of State can review the application if it is recommended for approval by committee if he deems it appropriate.

SMBC are in the process of publishing their report which has not yet appeared on the web site - so here it is. The DDRA AGM was of course dominated by discussion of Sainsbury's, most of it was quite negative about the development, including our own points which were targetted at issues we had raised which the report did not appear to acknowledge or answer. The most effective place to raise your concerns is with the councillors.

While there are issues that make us believe the scheme is inappropriate in its current form, we would also urge those who have an opinion, whether for or against the development, to contact the Councillors who will be developing their presentation to the committee and have stated that they will meet their obligations to represent all residents.

Thanks to vigilent members of the community, a document sent to SMBC by Sainsbury's has been spotted in the live file and it has now been added to the SMBC web site here. This was intended to be a further rebuttal of the suggestion that there was insufficient parking space. It relies on a standard database, and those who have read the DDRA response to the original submission will be aware that we do not believe that the data has been treated appropriately. The further submission takes the same inappropriate approach to the data with the suggestion that we should rely on a model that demonstrates that there are MINUS 49 cars in the car park at some times. We hope that SMBC will treat this "evidence" with the credibility it deserves. They also now assert, contrary to their original submission, that the Sainsbury's car park will provide extra parking for the rest of Dorridge, relieving Arden Buildings, however, they provide no evidence of how the numbers they supply can provide that - they simply assert that the demand is hidden in the numbers. DDRA have asked that SMBC review the parking evidence with an appropriately qualified professional.

Also on the site is a revised planting scheme along Forest Road (here) where there is a planting of trees along the road. Residents may wish to review this.

Having spoken to the Planning Department, the Sainsbury's Planning Committee decision has been scheduled for the 10th March.

A week before, the Planning Department will publish a report which will set out the Planning Officers' views on the application. Included in this will be a recommendation. It is important to understand that the Planning Committee are not bound by this recommendation, however, they would have to have strong, justified reasons to go against it. Having said that, Planning Officers cannot account for public opinion, whereas the Planning Committee are allowed to take a wider view of what the public interest is, so there are things that Officers will discount on a dispassionate review of policy that Committee members can account for.

If there is anything that is factually incorrect in the report, this can be challenged simply by dropping the Planning Department a note explaining your concerns. However, simply restating arguments already made is not effective, as these will be dismissed as having been taken into account by the report. Any corrections or additional information will be put in a Briefing Note that is published shortly before the evening meeting (and can usually be obtained from Solihull Connect by prior request).

On the evening of the planning committee meeting, the meeting commences at 6pm in the Council House committee rooms. You can park in the Council House car park for free for evening meetings. They allow a 3 minute presentation by one person speaking against the application, and then 3 minutes for someone speaking for. You must register to speak, and the Council will expect any contention between speakers to be amicably sorted out, otherwise it is first come, first served. (We note that DROVS - Dorridge Residents Opposed to Village Superstore have engaged a professional planning consultant to speak, and we would expect that he will represent the case against).

Councillors can then speak. They are not time limited. Our understanding is that the Councillors have adopted a similar stance to the DDRA in that they recognise that there is a difference of opinion between residents and therefore they are not taking a view for or against the development. However, they will be more than happy to represent your views to the committee where appropriate, so we strongly recommend that you contact your Councillor if you feel there is any aspect of the development needs representation to the committee, either for or against.

When the committee meeting reaches the Sainsbury's agenda item (which is likely to be first on the agenda due to the interest), the officers will run through their view of the development. It is important to note that the audience are not allowed to speak to the committee, and should refrain from seeking to unduly influence the committee by inappropriate comments as this could lead to a decision being overturned if it was felt that there was undue interference. Vigourous nodding and shaking of heads is highly recommended! Having presented the plans, the speakers speak, then the committee get to pontificate at length. During this, where there are issues of planning guidance, the officers will usually set out the planning position.

It then goes to the vote, and then we all shuffle out, leaving the committee to get on with the next items. At this point, everyone should move away from the committee room to allow the meeting to continue. Post mortems can then be carried out in the corridors or pubs as appropriate.

The Conservation Committee recommended an objection be raised about the development. This was for two main reasons: the impact of the lack of parking and delivery for the Station Approach buildings which would have a negative impact on the Conservation Area, and because it was felt that the treatment of the rear of the buildings and the side to Forest Road were unsympathetic to Station Approach. Like individual objections, an objection from the Conservation Committee does not necessarily mean that the development would not go ahead (for example, it could be decided that the issue could be resolved by Sainsbury's submitting some amended plans), but that objection is likely to carry significant weight when the Planning Officer determines the report. The vote was 9:5 in favour of the objection. The Committee is made up of members of the Planning Committee, along with various Residents Associations and Parish Councils.

The original officer's recommendation was for no objection to be raised. You can read the report here.

There is no date as yet for the planning committee review of the application, it is likely to be 17th February, but could even be 10th March, for example,if Sainsbury's want to submit some changes to try and resolve Conservation Committee objections.

We have now written to the Council with our observations as attached here. Essentailly our letter is an expansion on the issues noted just below. Our main point is that we believe that Sainsbury's have confused two different issues in arriving at their conclusion that there is sufficient car parking. Not one of our most consise letters, for the dedicated observers only! Before Christmas, we reviewed these issues with SMBC's Highways Department who have been appreciative of our input. We intend to have a meeting with the planner in charge to ensure that they have got a clear understanding of residents' concerns.

We have not as yet got a confirmed date for the planning meeting.

SMBC have reviewed one aspect of the application as the Conservation Committee have reviewed this in relation to the impact on the Station Approach Conservation Area. The recommendation was for no objection to be raised. You can read the report here.

The Sainsbury's development has been one of the most challenging issues the Residents Association has had to deal with, balancing the concerns over the fundamental change to the village over the replacement of an eyesore and the genuine enthusiasm of many members of the community for a supermarket development. The development is not our ideal vision, on the other hand we must acknowledge that Sainsbury's have made a genuine effort to do more than provide a basic supermarket building and there are aspects of this development that we see as very positive.

From the start, it has been recognised that noise, traffic and car parking were going to be the critical issues, and in reviewing the application we find that Sainsbury's have not yet resolved our doubts about these issues.

We have studied the car parking analysis in great depth and have these concerns:

• Uncertain as to how reliable the statistics are that have been used to estimate volumes, with some concerns that best practice has not been followed in generating information.
• Very concerned that the statistics have been discounted by 20% without the evidence to support this.
• No account has been taken of the needs for access and parking for Station Approach businesses.
• No account seems to have been taken of the demands that the rest of Dorridge puts on the car park, including patients at the surgery.
• There is no indication of what the impact would be if the demand is in excess of that modelled. We have found that, ignoring other concerns, if the estimate is 10% out, the car park will be full. The surgery depends on free access through the car park, which clearly could not occur if the parking is extremely busy.
• The car parking offer is around 50% of the maximum guideline from SMBC for this development, which is itself intended to be a constraint.

As it stands, we suspect that the development would create such demand that the car park would be saturated and the whole of Dorridge would suffer, not just the Sainsbury's development. Insufficient car parking would be a significant problem as the surgery would potentially be inaccessible, as well as the likely chaos of cars queuing to access the site which is also the access to the station and for buses. The car parking is of especial concern as with the rail demand and the problems this causes, and the limited parking elsewhere in the village centre, it is hard to see how the development can readily be modified to provide more capacity, though clearly a smaller development would be expected to generate less demand for parking.

We have looked at the figures for additional traffic and have some concerns that the models used may not reflect the difficulties encountered in the real world, for example, as to whether the Station Road/Widney Road roundabout will operate satisfactorily. We have also asked that the Poplar Road junction be reviewed as there were mistakes made in the assessment.

At the time of writing, what did not seem to come across clearly from the documents published on the web site, is how Station Road will be significantly remodelled, with the majority of the carriageway along side Forest Court being turned into a pedestrian area. More importantly, the road will be calmed to operate at about 20mph and we would support the whole circuit around Forest Court being a 20mph zone. Concerns have been raised about how traffic will exit out of Poplar Road, and we are advised that it is expected that the significantly lower speeds, combined with the use of the crossings should allow the traffic to be broken up and, with a little co-operation, cars will be able to negotiate the junction safely. We note that there are issues negotiating the station roundabout safely even at present.

Our final concern is for the impact on the residents of Forest Road, who not only will have to tolerate the construction nuisance, but will have to live with the deliveries and extra traffic thereafter. We should not forget that currently Dorridge is extremely quiet on a Sunday and this will change, especially for those residents. We are therefore concerned that Sainsbury's are suggesting a very early start for deliveries at 5am and we will object to such an arrangement. We are also concerned that Sainsbury's have not yet made a convincing case that the noise generated by deliveries and by chillers and air-conditioning will not be a nuisance and we are doing our best to support the residents in resolving these issues.

We have put these concerns to Sainsbury's as we believe that the best path is to try and resolve these issues, rather than seeking to be obstructive to the development as a whole. Sainsbury's have assured us that they accept that these concerns are reasonable and will seek to explain or resolve them.

Sainsbury's have told us that the application has been submitted and we have received notification via the Council system that there has been a submission. Plans can be seen at http://www.solihull.gov.uk/planning/dc/ListAppDocs.asp?Y=2009&R=1746.

Sainsbury's have updated their website with the current application. You can see a summary of the changes there at their official site http://www.sainsburysdorridge.co.uk/

Checking with the planners at SMBC, the site notice should be posted this week along with newspaper adverts. That means that comments should be in within 21 days of the last of those notices, which suggests that residents should get their comments in by around the 3rd December. The policy SMBC work to is that they do accept comments beyond that date up to the date of the committee meeting, but they would need time to deal with any new concerns raised so residents should not rely on that extra time (you can always put in a comment and then add to it at a later date). Given that the next planning committee date published on the SMBC site is the 9th December residents should try and get their comments in by early December, but definitely before Christmas as the following dates are 6th and 25th of January.

We have followed up with Sainsbury's again. They have quickly responded that they have been further delayed due to modifying the scheme in response to representations, but they are now in the final steps towards submitting their application. When the application is ready, they will update their web site and the display in the former Birchill-Edwards site. We have not seen the further modifications but understand that they relate to resolving parking and access issues for the surgery amongst other things. When they do submit, it will take SMBC some time to validate an application of this scale, so it may take some further time before the detailed documentation is available through SMBC.

We should also take this opportunity to thank all those with professional expertise who have offered to help scrutinise the application for us. We are sure that the considered comments of residents have already been instrumental in ensuring Sainsbury's have put significant effort into resolving issues as far as their commercial criteria allow.

We have followed up with Sainsbury's as to what progress they have made. It appears there have been some further delays and the plans are not yet finalised. It seems likely that it will be another month before the application is ready judging from comments made, though we have not been told this explicitly. We are disappointed that Sainsbury's have not made some form of interim plan public as it is a long time since Sainsbury' briefed us on their revised plans and we had assumed that they would publish this information to the public in a timely fashion.

On the 6th, Sainsbury's met with various people to sound out opinions on changes to the road system

Sainsbury's presented a plan showing how the so-called 'public realm' area will be arranged but stressed that changes can still be made. Main points :

• The trees on the current carriageway divider to be retained and replaced when they come to the end of their lives.
• Paviour of differing colours and textures between Station Approach and Forest Road should reduce speed. Requests for a 20mph limit noted. Low level speed tables at Station Approach and Forest Road.
• The Council may (or may not!) convert the railway bridge pedestrian crossing to a Pelican Crossing. Different views as to whether this would be a good thing - a green light means 'go for it', encouraging speeding, a red one may cause tailbacks.
• The proposed road layout would inhibit clear visibility through the village, making drivers more cautious.
• The National Express rep wants Hockley Heath services to stop at the station as the nearest stop to Sainsbury's would be beyond the railway bridge. This would require realignment of the left turn Station Approach/Station Road.
• Concern at lack of clear demarcation between 'public realm' and vehicle carriageways.
• Concern at lack of drop-off/pick-up area at front of store.
• Much comment around disability requirements - guide dogs failing to recognise different types of paviour, no proposed provision of mobility scooters, disabled people find travelators difficult, surgery suite could be difficult to access, taxi drivers don't like to enter carparks - especially underground - when they cannot be clear as to where their fare will be waiting. Bus passengers experience pain when buses negotiate speed humps or tables - particular problem for back pain sufferers.

Richard Thomas, the Highwayman who joined us on June 18, made careful notes and assured us that all views would be considered and that he would pass on to SMBC any aspects which are their concern rather than Sainsbury's.

Sainsbury's presented new plans to DDRA and some other groups recently. Please see the attached document (DDRAMeetingSainsburys180609.pdf)for the DDRA's view on that meeting. The quick summary is that the general scale of the building remains the same, with some significant design changes and a likely date for formal submission and public comment of September.

Sainsbury's tell us that they are still working on the plans and other information and do not now expect to submit the planning application until June.

There has been no new information presented from Sainsbury's and the only communication we have is an update from questions posed in February, Sainsbury's provided as a response. (Notes of original meeting here). They also provided their definitive list of store sizes (sq ft): Dorridge - 26229; Solihull Poplar Rd - 18859; Marshall Lake - 58275. We note that the Dorridge store size is reduced from their web site figure by about 3000 sq ft but do not know whether this represents a correction, a redesign, or whatever.

We have had a further committee meeting and suspect that as it seems to be unlikely that the main concerns over the scale of development and impact on local traffic are unlikely to be addressed that we can start framing our response. However, with the diverse opinions, it is very important that individual residents make their views known to the committee and we will cover that process in the next Newsletter.

We met with Sainsbury's. There was little new information avaiable. Sainsbury's revisions had been impacted by the lack of a traffic survey which was delayed due to the winter weather and then half term.

As comments have been received, we have been gathering up the comments here. These do not represent any position of the DDRA or validation of any comments and as Sainsbury's have not yet revealed their final design, it is not possible to properly judge the validity of any comments against the plans.

Last week SMBC planners and Highways accepted our invitation to have a site visit and we were able to ensure that SMBC were aware of the various issues that have been identified.

DDRA representatives were pleased to find that the SMBC representatives were giving consideration to a similar list of concerns that we had. This is useful to understand as it means that Sainsbury's should be getting appropriate advice from the Council in their pre-application discussions.

Later this week, the DDRA is having an update meeting with Sainsbury's in which we hope to gain an indication of how they have responded to concerns raised in the consultation.

In response to the Newsletter, we have had a magnificent response, with a very wide range of opinions fed back, from anger that we have not vigourously opposed this development, to outright enthusiasm for the development. Please keep your views coming in as they will influence the representations we make to Sainsbury's and the Council.

Based on feedback from Sainsbury's, they are currently looking at the issue of the store design and we can expect to see something different at some point in the future (that is not to say that they are necessarily addressing the issue of the size of the store). They have been reviewing their design with MADE (Midlands Architecture and the Designed Environment).

In terms of timescale, the very soonest Sainsbury's feel they could be in a position to put in a planning application is May in view of the amount of work to be done. However, they have assured us that there will be no surprises on this and there will be publicity before that occurs. Residents are encouraged to use the phone lines (Freephone number 0800 975 5299) to raise any concerns that they still have - there is no specific end to the consultation process.

The DDRA working party has met to assess what we have learnt so far. It is clear that the plans presented are at an early stage and so it is difficult to form a conclusion on the acceptability of a likely development, even with the positive verbal responses we have heard from Sainsbury's.

We have received a lot of feedback from residents, which could be described as a cautious interest in some form of development, with some serious concerns and good observations on real issues that need to be resolved.

We are arranging a further meeting with Sainsbury's with the following agenda:

• Highways and traffic.
• Parking.
• Design and size
• Delivery & unloading (the two may happen at different times).
• Meeting the retail needs of Dorridge
• Access to the Doctors' suite. Design and layout.
• Early cosmetic improvements to Station Approach facades.
• Maximising community use of the development.
• Proposed lettings policy for new & existing retail units.
• Timescale for consultation/planning application.

We are also concerned for the special interests of the nearby residents and looking to work with them to ensure their special interests are properly dealt with.

Members of the DDRA went to the consultation several times and were impressed at the number of people who attended (some 2000 we understand) and the constructive way residents put their concerns. It is clear there is a broad range of opinion from strong enthusiasm to strong objection though it seems nearly everyone accepts the need for action. In speaking to residents there, and in other communications received, it is clear that it has stimulated a lot of careful thought about the scheme and we are now considering what issues we need to press more firmly with Sainsbury's. We have received informal feedback from Sainsbury's that they acknowledge the need to address the design and traffic issues.

The committee of the DDRA met on Monday 12th Jan. to discuss the outline plans of the development. You can read the notes of this discussion by clicking here.

Please note that these are just notes of our views on the issues the development raises and do not represent any "position".

Please contact us on our general email address - dorridgeresidents@googlemail.com to pass on your views.

We would also encourage all residents to visit the Sainsbury's consultation on Friday 16th and Saturday 17th January to ensure that they have the up to date information on what the development will entail.