Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 69496
Received: 04/04/2016
Respondent: James Plaskitt
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The allocation of this site conflicts with Coventry and Warwick's objectives. In the case of Coventry, the Plan focuses on employment growth. As a result this allocation means that employment growth is not co-located with housing growth. Warwick's plan seeks to only allocate green field sites where they are located close to areas of employment. This is not the case. Further the site is not appropriate, particularly as Coventry seek to bring forward sites adjacent to the City boundary to avoid in-commuting. So the site is inconsistent with the plan's objectives.
In this context Kings Hill is far more logical
See attached