Object

Representation ID: 65668

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council Physical Assets Business Unit

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Considers the allocation of 8ha of employment land north of Gallows Hill is not justified.
Market assesment identifies there is good demand for B1 office space across regional markets, existing out of town offices continue to see poor demand and landowners are seeking to diversify. THis has been evidenced by WDC recently granting permission for residential development on the comitted employment land at Warwick Gates which benefited from planning permission for B1. The focus of demand is for high quality accomodation within or adjacent to the town centres.
There is a severe shortage of land to serve the needs of the distribution
sector nationally and regionally and in Warwick District there are very few existing sites which are available
for industrial and distribution uses to meet local needs. Industrial and distribution uses should be located
with good accessibility to the national and regional road network.
In relation to B2 whilst traditional manufacturing is declining there is renaissance in the advanced manufacturing sector. Warwick District will see good demand from local advanced manufacturing companies given the District's links with the automotive sector. Occupiers prefer sites which are not adjacent to other uses such as offices and residential. Sites which are adjacent to these uses see much lower levels of demand and are often not deliverable. Land North of Gallows Hill does not meet the current market requirements. This is evidenced by slow take up on Warwick Technology Park and lack of interest at Warwick Gates.
Market assessment also disagrees with the ELR update that the majority of demand with be for B1a/b with some demand for storage and distribution. Market signals show very strong demand for B2 / B8. Whilst demand for office accommodation will also be significant, this will be
focused on or adjacent to town centres.
To meet the demands of the office market delivery should be focused on the town centres and informed by a sequential approach. It is not clear why WDC has chosen to allocate Riverside House, an existing office location on the edge of Leamington town centre, for residential development. The market assessment shows there would be good demand there and the ELR update identifies as a good office location. Redevelopment densities would be higher that what could be acheived on an out of town site.
No reasonable justification is provided for the 8ha North of Gallows Hill. No detailed assessment of potential sites which would meet market requirements is provided. land to the north of Gallows Hill would not support the long term future of the Warwick Technology Park, would not be deliverable or viable for office development and is not a suitable location for B2 development.
Previous Local Plan consultation documents note that the relationship of the land with Warwick Technology Park is dependant on this area being accessed directly from the existing Technology Park road. WCC has submitted objections detailing that this link cannot be acheived without loss of existing parking and the use of third party land to overcome the difference in levels. The concept of the Technology Park being a specialist area was diluted by the planning approval for unrestricted B1 use in 1991.
Questions allocation in relation to deliverability, spatial planning and overall masterplanning in terms of
the ability to deliver a spine road through the Land West of Europa Way urban extension if it is not delivered due to poor market demand.
Would create an unattractive gap in development form whilst waiting for market interest.
Amenity considerations arising from the juxtaposition of B2 with residential uses
Impact on Grade II listed Heathcote Hill Farmhouse

Most recent transport assessment has made a 50 / 50 assumption between B1 and B2 and refers to the allocation as Lower Heathcote Farm - the scenario does not therefore reflect the Publication DRaft.