Object

Representation ID: 65001

Received: 04/05/2014

Respondent: Mr Michael Nockalls

* WDC utilised the findings in the Salford GTAA report in order to establish need. However, no evidence of WDC due diligence in validating accuracy of report/ and or relevance of established need.
* The WDC consultation does not consider as required the existing capacity of current sites within Warwickshire County and adjacent districts.
* The GTAA ignores the impact of the planned transit site near Southam which has been agreed since completion of the GTAA.
* Warwick and Stratford DC are out of phase with their consultations so logically they cannot collaborate as required by Govt. policy. There is no evidence that WDC has collaborated or discussed with Stratford DC other than a reported 10 minute long but un-minuted meeting, or with Rugby DC.
* No evidence in WDCs consultation report a required by NPPF and CLG that it has weighed the cost to the Council of Compulsory Purchase versus development of underutilised brownfield sites including those that the Council already own.
* WDC's proposals will provide more accommodation than there are G&T residents within WDC boundary the vast majority of whom already live in houses so the requirement is clearly over-stated
* Clear evidence in Hansard that MPs now want abolition of G&T Planning Policy requirement
* Consultation has been poor-without local community group would not have known about proposals. Feels like a deliberate underhand approach.

Specific Site Related issues:

The site does not meet planning criteria set out in NPPF, guidance from DCLG, and WDCs own consultation documents for G&T sites.

The Site does not comply with planning policy relating to access to nearby services and quality of life. Specifically:

* Accessibility to shops and local services:-site not within recommended 5-10 minute walk on a pavement.
* Proximity to local community:-site does not meet NPPF guidelines to be on community periphery to encourage integration
* Establishing 5-10 pitches would be disproportionate to the local community (8 residential properties, with 16 adults and 4 children) and is contrary to NPPF.
* Site does not meet NPPF requirements in respect to access to good local transport
* Contrary to NPPF, the infrastructure serving the site is poor (roads, pavement, street lighting, broadband, cellphone reception) and would require considerable investment to rectify at a time of financial constraint for WDC
* The area is subject to flooding. Owing to clay soil soak ways or run off based drainage cannot be used, and will require connection to main sewerage which does not exist in Harbury lane
* The site is at least 45 minutes walk away from schools and GP surgeries and doesn not therefore meet planning policy requirement of 5-10 minute walking distance