Comment

Alternative Sites Consultation

Representation ID: 44272

Received: 08/04/2010

Respondent: Mrs Angela Fryer

Representation Summary:

Development would result in erosion of green belt. Looking at Coventry's housing requirements it is evident that there is no need to lose greenbelt land.
The Joint Green Belt Review in January 2009 identified 26 parcels of land as being least constrained for development. The study did not go into detailed analysis and this was to be left to the emerging core strategies. A single representation was put forward for the land that is King's Hill and that resulted in Finham becoming a preferred option. This under the SHLAA process is unsound as Site 5 was not even considered.

Full text:

I remain of the opinion that the need for such large housing development in this area as imposed by Government remains unproven but feel that the following considerations should be imposed on all proposals.
1. No green belt land should be considered until all Brownfield sites have been fully developed. Look at the history of Developers in Coventry where a Brownfield site is started with a large number of homes proposed but once the developer has planning permission the numbers of dwellings are reduced and they move to the next site.
2. Numbers of houses on a site should be restricted to 100 homes to ensure that no single area is 'swamped' by a development and loses its existing identity.
3. Any of these additional proposals are more acceptable than the initial plan to build in excess of 3,500 houses on Kings Hill. Congratulations to a Council that can admit when a proposal is seriously flawed.
4. The main objective for any housing plans should be to encourage local employment and minimise the need to commute. Therefore WDC should consider small developments that are close to existing developments within its own area to meet this need. Sites that are close to Warwick, Leamington and Stratford should take priority for these reasons. Development closer to Coventry would only result in permanently 'joining' the two areas and resulting in the long term of a new Coventry and Warwickshire District Council?
5. The area around Warwick Parkway has never appeared as a consideration yet this has excellent access to a rail and road network. I understand that a reason given was the presence of Great Crested Newts? If this is the reason then King's Hill with its large number of ponds, Badger sets and ancient woodlands should not be under consideration?