Object

Representation ID: 63380

Received: 29/07/2013

Respondent: Margaret Hamilton

Historic Distinctiveness and lack of "vision":

* The plan should do more to promote good design in housing. Husband was a prominent modernist architect and would be horrified by the lack of commitment to good design in this plan.

* It is should also seek to unambiguously protect the historic buildings in the area and their settings, as this is one of the major "draw" factors for population growth and economic vitality

* The plan has some very vague and bland statements, it needs a clearly articulated "heritage vision", backed up with detailed planning guidance and then an appetite for rigorous enforcement.

* Our towns are special, BUT only if the key historic and architectural elements and values are protected, otherwise they risk becoming a sprawling new town reminiscent of Milton Keynes.

* Existing open spaces, sports fields, allotments and parklands should unambiguously be protected from development, including their settings.

Alternative:
* Build modern squares rather than "garden cities", the higher density and ease of mixed development can lead to more sustainable communities and less urban sprawl. Leamington and Hove have fine Regency examples, but the concept can work with modern buildings too (refers to several exemplar web sites).

Green Belt and Employment:

* Supports the use of green belt land to expand employment opportunities on well designed business parks at Stoneleigh and around the University. BUT there must be good public transport links to allow potential workers to access these jobs from the existing WDC Urban areas.

* Concerned that there is not enough employment land and some has been allowed to be used for housing development rather than kept for future jobs.


Public Space:

* Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on !
* Any new developments should have additional public space. 5.4.14, 5.4.16 and 5.4.17 The need for extra public space is mentioned, to accommodate the great increase in population proposed, why then is there not a clear policy to designate all existing public parks such as St Nicholas, Priory and St Mary Lands as "areas of restraint".
* As their need to serve the huge increase in population means their preservation and protection is even more important.


* WDC must commit to protecting the existing listed buildings, open public spaces and conservation areas, from encroachment by development and excessive traffic.


* Suggests the English Heritage Guidance published in May 2011 in "Seeing History in the View" should be incorporated into the plan.

Climate Change Flood Risk:

Given the recent patterns of heavy rainfall and the long history of local flooding, great care should be given to the sitting of all new developments. Claims of 1000 year flood modelling should be treated with extreme scepticism as reliable data only exists for the past 90 years.

Especially in existing urban areas a conservative approach should be given to any large new buildings and their impact on surface water drainage.

Consideration should be given to more local flood defences and helping individuals to flood proof their homes.

Fear of Crime:

As a pensioner feel that the local plan should do more to address the issues of fear of crime:

* No sex clubs or night clubs should be allowed near housing- they should only be built in non residential areas;
* No new pubs, bars or hotels should be built or change of use in areas of predominately residential nature, to protect existing residential amenity;

* There should be the presumption that in residential areas new businesses will not increase the background ambient noise levels.

* Good Design:

* The plan highlights good design and sustainability, this should be supported and defined

* All new housing should be built to Parker Morris or similar appropriate functional space standards http://www.singleaspect.org.uk/pm/index.php

Tourism:

* Any new visitor accommodation -over a small number of bedrooms- should consider potential negative impact on the existing providers locally as a material planning consideration.

* Small independent providers of accommodation tend to support far more local jobs and have a bigger local economic impact by their use of local suppliers.

* It is desirable to have a diversity in type and location of accommodation providers.

New budget chain hotels should only be permitted where it can be demonstrated there is an unmet demand or capacity need. And there will not be a detrimental impact on existing businesses

Green Wedges:

This seems to be a meaningless concept.