PO8: Economy

See attached

See attached

See attachment

See attachment

See attached

Providing sustainable levels of growth :
The levels of growth envisioned are not sustainable- in that the level of infrastructure, its
distribution, housing location and jobs, do not match the population growth forecast.
A 40% increase in Warwick's population over 15 years is clearly unsustainable and will cause
immense damage to the the character of the County Town
Level of Population Growth and demand for housing assumptions:
These are flawed because:
Given that more than 50% of national population growth has been from immigration over the
last two decades, and the government has publicly stated it wishes to greatly reduce this
future net immigration, why is Warwick District planning for an even greater level of growth
over the next 15 years, than has been experienced in the recent past?
* Housing demand growth in England is from a combination of net immigration and
changes in household demographics towards smaller households.
* However the impact of a prolonged recession which the Prime Minister says could last
another decade, will impact on the ability of individuals to afford housing.
* This is manifest in the rapidly rising age of first time buyers and the profound
demographic change since 2008 in more young adults living at home with their parents
for much longer than in the past.
* So why is the plan still assuming a rapid increase in demand for single occupancy
households; when the actual demographic trend is away from this?
* Is the modelling based on current data, or is it simply looking at the demand during the
decade of rapid growth and easy availability of mortgage loans pre the 2008 crash?
* This in turn could mean that in fact far less individual units are required for the District
as a whole, but a greater emphasis should be given for multi generational living , with
semi independent adults?
Distribution of housing within the District
The plan talks about the need to distribute housing across the entire District , but then in fact does
not do this!
A starting point should be that EVERY ward has the same level of housing growth during the plan,
i.e. A 20% across the board increase.
* It appears that most housing will be again concentrated within Warwick and parts of
Leamington Spa, with very little in the large villages or in Kenilworth
* This is curious, as it also points out the lack of affordable rural housing but then basically
ignores any provision for it!
1
6 Hampton Street, Warwick, CV34 6HS
* The inexplicable lack of housing growth in and around Kenilworth is most odd given that the
job growth is likely to be around the University and Coventry Airport, and the town already
has a lot of facilities.
* 830 houses over 15 years in the villages is clearly inadequate to meet their housing needs
or the lack of affordable housing, this is only 55 houses per year spread across a wide
geographical area.
* I suggest as a minimum 2500 of the 10800 houses in the plan be developed in the
village areas spread evenly across the district.
* This provision WOULD meet the need for affordable rural housing projected, at 55
per year if 33% was "affordable".
I suggest two areas which have been overlooked for large scale housing provision are Radford
Semile and Lapworth.
* Both are ripe for large scale "garden suburbs", supported by business parks. This would
support and make more viable their existing shops and schools.
* I suggest that at least an additional 1000 to 1500 houses are considered for each ward, and
therefore the significant benefits of population growth extolled by this plan are met, coupled
with local affordable housing and retail provision
* I note they both have existing primary schools, and good proximity to public transport and
roads, and Lapworth has a commuter railway station.
* There is also the opportunity in Lapworth to build a business park to tap into the proximity
to Solihull and at Radford Semile to build a business park dedicated to engineering to tap
into the expertise and supply chain associated with Ricardos.
* This in turn would mean much smaller developments around Milverton and Warwick would
therefore by required.
Transport
For the plan to be actually sustainable, there needs to be a lot more vision for integrated public
transport.
Cycle ways:
It would be a good objective to work with the County Council to ensure that EVERY community is
served by a dedicated cycle way, especially within the urban areas, where short lengths of cycle
way often just stop.
This should be funded by developers of the new housing as a priority via the Community
Infrastructure Levy
Commuter Rail and Bus Routes:
The plan envisions much new low cost housing, yet this is concentrated mainly around Warwick,
and the new job provision is in the north of the District.
HOW are those in low paid jobs who will presumably be the beneficiaries of the "low cost" housing,
be able to commute to where the jobs are if they cannot afford their own cars?
For the plan to be sustainable surely it would be better to have more smaller housing
developments within walking/ cycle distance of the new job provision; i.e. small estates near small
business parks?
* IF this is not possible a commitment to provide and subsidise long distance inter nodal
commuter bus routes is essential.
* Low paid workers will need to be able to commute quickly and cheaply to where the jobs
actually are!?
* This can be achieved, by developing inter town express bus routes to link together;
2
6 Hampton Street, Warwick, CV34 6HS
Warwick, Leamington, Stratford, Coventry, The University, Nuneaton, Rugby, Kenilworth
and the larger villages; integrated with mini bus services which will THEN serve the local
housing areas. Funded by the Community Infrastructure Levy.
* NOT the farcical situation as now when it take between 90 and 120 minutes each way to
get between towns , which IF a direct town centre to town centre route could be achieved in
20 -30 minutes, (existing buses take very circular routes).
* This lack of effective public commuter transport compounds inequality and creates greater
dependency on state subsidies, as those able and willing to work cannot afford the
transport to get to the jobs, and the bus services are simply too slow and too infrequent to
be a viable alternative.
* Similarly regular local new commuter train services linking together ALL the major
Warwickshire Towns and Coventry should be a priority, funded by the Community
Infrastructure Levy,.
* The "virtual" park and ride scheme, seems like a lot of hot air political spin. Does it
effectively mean NO park and ride , but a slightly extended bus route?
Air Pollution
Parts of WDC already do not meet the Nox emissions EU Directive, including large parts of the
centre of Warwick.
This is likely to be tightened up in the near future with harder targets and lower permissible
emissions, possibly wit fines for non compliance.
It therefore seems curious that the large-scale housing developments on the edge of Warwick are
suggested with a likely 40% increase in the town's population, over 15 years.
This will inevitably add to the congestion and air pollution; so why is it in the plan on this scale?
Historic Distinctiveness
* I believe the plan should do more to promote good design in housing.
* 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.
* The existing open spaces, sports fields, allotments and parklands should unambigiously be
protected from development, including their settings.
Definitions of affordable Housing
I suggest that the definition of what is affordable housing needs broadening.
The plan highlights the need for housing for the elderly and the growth of the elderly as a % of the
population.
One solution to their needs and the obvious trends in semi independent adults living much longer
with their parents because they cannot afford to get on the housing ladder, would be to classify
"granny flats" or semi separated apartments within houses as going towards the "affordable
housing" targets.
Multigenerational living should be encouraged as it meets housing need, is sustainable and reflects
changing land-use patterns. There is the opportunity to boost this by incorporating it into the plan's
3
6 Hampton Street, Warwick, CV34 6HS
housing targets and helps meet the need for "mixed" housing.
Gypsy Site:
I suggest the land adjacent to the Junc 15 of the M40 might be a suitable site.
There is little nearby existing housing, but a public bus service and good road access
Employment Land
I support 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.
HS2
HS2 could open up significant advantages for the West Midlands by improving links to London &
Heathrow, but more importantly Northern English cities and direct rail links with northern Europe.
I support HS2 and would suggest that rather than opposing a strategic transport plan which cannot
be blocked by WDC due to existing legislation, the Council concentrates in obtaining maximum
benefit for the District, by getting subsidies for improving the transport links to meet the HS2
stations.
Conservation Areas and Historic Environment
* WDC must commit to protecting the existing listed buildings, open public spaces and
conservation areas, from encroachment by development.
* Particularly as most development needs - as defined by this plan-will be met by building on
greenfield and brown field sites, there is therefore less pressure to damage the existing
historic town buildings?
* I suggest the English Heritage Guidance published in May 2011 in "Seeing History in the
View" should be incorporated into the plan.
Climate Change
Flooding and SUDS. 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
* 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. If this cannot be achieved these businesses should
4
6 Hampton Street, Warwick, CV34 6HS
be located in designated areas such as retail or business parks.
Good Design:
The plan highlights good design and sustainability, this should be supported but defined
All new housing should be built to Parker Morris standards
http://www.singleaspect.org.uk/pm/index.php
* These standards are based on ergonomics of the minimum space needed to meet "a
functional approach to determining space standards in the home by considering
what furniture was needed in rooms, the space needed to use the furniture and move
around it, and the space needed for normal, household activities."
As these were the minimum set for UK 1961 social housing it is not unreasonable that they should
be the very minimum acceptable in WDC for the next 15 years. OR we run the risk of creating
housing that CANNOT meet the needs of the occupants and risks becoming dysfunctional or
slums, which by definition is hardly "sustainable".
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.
Tourism
* Any new visitor accommodation -over a small number of bedrooms- should be examined to
see if it would have a 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 which have a similar impact on existing hotels and guest houses,
to that of supermarkets on independent retail traders. They 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 buisnesses.
Green Wedges
This seems to be a meaningless concept.

I act on behalf of BRB (Residuary) Ltd the owners of the Former Goods Yard on Station Approach in Leamington Spa. My clients objections to the Warwick Local Plan (WLP) are set out below.
1. Background to BRB (Residuary) Ltd Objections
As you know the Former Goods Yard on Station Approach benefits from an extant planning consent for B1 development (planning reference: W06/1058). This development was promoted in conjunction with Network Rail who own the land abutting the existing railway line. The outline planning permission for the B1 scheme was issued on the 28th April 2010 and was the culmination of 10 years of my client's hard efforts to actively promote and bring forward this site for development.
The consent provides for 8,047sqm (86,629sqft) of B1 (Office) floorspace on a 2.3 hectare site. It also includes the complete upgrading of Station Approach and other costly off-site highway improvements which can only be secured with the agreement of adjoining landowners (including the Council as owners of Station Approach) and through the additional funding generated by the redevelopment of the Former Quick's Garage site. Even though my clients and adjoining landowners reached agreement in 2008/2009 over the funding of the Station Approach upgrade and other highway improvements, the Council's decisions to consistently resist a residential led scheme on the Former Quick's site effectively put a stop to this comprehensive scheme and led to the break-up of the consortium of landowners that were a party to that agreement.
On numerous occasions my clients have made it very clear to the Council that without the ability to jointly fund the extensive highway works (with the developers of the Former Quick's site) any form of development on the Former Goods Yard site would be commercially unviable and could not proceed on its own. This position was reaffirmed in our representations to the Core Strategy Preferred Options and in my letter dated the 19th August 2009 (a copy of this letter can be provided if required).
More recently, my clients objected to the hybrid application on the Former Ford Foundry site (planning reference W10/1310) on the grounds that it represented a unique opportunity to bring forward the comprehensive regeneration of the whole of the Station Area (my letters dated the 15th December 2010 and 17th February 2011 refer). In particular, that it provided the mechanism to secure the relocation of Stagecoach to the Former Ford Car Park site thus opening up the way for the land to the north of the Station to come forward for residential development. Our objections concluded that if the Council failed to take a pro-active approach then not only would this opportunity be lost but it was also likely to mean that the Council's policy objectives for regenerating the whole of the Station Area were unlikely to be met in the foreseeable future. The Council proceeded to grant planning permission for the hybrid application in August 2011 without any provisions or commitment to relocate the Stagecoach Depot.
The Council have recently, through the Deputy Chief Executive, instigated discussions to bring forward a co-ordinated approach for the land north of the Station. Whilst my clients were not invited to the original meeting in May this year (but did outline their position in a letter to the Deputy Chief Executive dated the 30th April 2012 - a copy of which can be provided if required), my clients have since then agreed to partly fund in conjunction with other landowners (including the Council) a Scoping Study of the development potential of this land on which tenders are currently being sought. This Study will also consider the development potential with the Stagecoach Depot remaining in situ on its current site.
As I explained in my telephone discussions with the LDF Team this background is of considerable importance in understanding my clients objections to the WLP as currently drafted.
2. Objection to Housing Provisions & Policy PO4
During my discussions with the LDF Team Officers confirmed that neither my clients site nor any of the land north of the Station was allocated in the WLP for housing. Although the Station land is shown on the accompanying 'Maps' as 'Development Sites' Officers confirmed that this was an error. The latter appears consistent with the wording of policy PO4 in that it does not refer to the land at Station Approach. Officers confirmed that the latter was due to the fact that this land is regarded as a 'commitment'.
Paragraph 7.20 of the WLP in setting out the housing requirements to 2029 confirms that some of the required provision has already been accounted for in 'committed' and 'windfall' sites. The latter relates to small sites and the former to "sites which had planning approval for housing" as at the 1st April 2011. None of the land at Station Approach has planning permission for housing and in line with the definition in paragraph 7.20 it cannot therefore be a 'commitment'. The land at Station Approach is of course covered by the Station Area Planning & Development Brief (2008 Brief), adopted by the Council in September 2008. However, this simply confirms that B1 (Business) and residential development will be supported in this location, including residential development across the whole of the site, the latter subject to the relocation of the Stagecoach Depot. The Brief does not, however, form part of the Development Plan in that it is not a Supplementary Planning Document prepared in accord with, at the time, PPS12, undermining the weight that can therefore be attached to it.
The 2012 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) includes the land at Station Approach as a 'Potentially Suitable Urban Site' ('Site Ref L35'), but again does not refer to it or treat it as a 'commitment'. It also confirms that its availability is subject to an alternative location for the Bus (Stagecoach) Garage been found and suggests it could provide approximately 150 units by 2019 - 2024.
My clients supported in principle the 2008 Brief's promotion of residential development on their site. They continue to remain fully supportive of residential development in this location, but as this is not a 'commitment' my clients are firmly of the view that the WLP must be amended to:
 Allocate the land at Station Approach for housing through policy PO4, and
 Allocate a suitable and viable site for the relocation of the Stagecoach Depot
Paragraphs 150 -182 (inclusive) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) confirm that Council's must be realistic in seeking to bring forward land for development and should only allocate sites that can be 'delivered' within the Plan period. At present, the land at Station Approach is not a 'commitment' and there are no proposals even in the 2008 Brief to bring forward this land for residential development. The 2008 Brief and 2012 SHLAA both suggest that the land can only be developed comprehensively for residential use following the relocation of the Stagecoach Depot.
The WLP clearly provides the opportunity to not only promote and bring forward the land at Station Approach for residential development through its allocation under policy PO4, but also the allocation of a separate site to accommodate the relocated Stagecoach Depot (subject to the findings of the proposed Scoping Study referred to earlier). This approach is consistent with that recommended by my clients in their response to the draft Core Strategy (see my letter dated the 19th August 2009). The arguments and justification put forward at the time remain, but take on greater significance given that the new Local Plan format now seeks to address and provide for all future 'allocations' or development 'needs', rather than being restricted to bringing forward strategic growth locations as was the case with the draft Core Strategy. The Stagecoach allocation would need to be supported by a commitment from the Council to use, if necessary, its CPO powers, either to secure the provision of the new site or Stagecoach's relocation from their existing site (again subject to the findings of the proposed Scoping Study).
3. Objection to Employment Provisions & Policy PO8
During my discussions with the LDF Team Officers confirmed that my clients site and specifically their extant B1 consent was not included in the 'supply' of available ('committed') employment land. This is reaffirmed in the 'evidence base' for the WLP, the 2011 Employment Land Supply. Table 1 of the latter confirms that the Station Goods Yard should be excluded from the 'supply' as the 2008 Brief supports residential development across all the land to north of the Station.
In discussing this issue with the LDF Team it was agreed that I should explain my clients long term aspirations for their landholdings. In doing so it's important to firstly understand the role and purpose of my clients, BRB (Residuary) Ltd. The Company was formed following the split up and sale of British Rail in 1993. It was given the role of discharging the remaining functions of the British Railways Board. The Company is owned by the Government and reports to the Department of Transport. It is responsible for a variety of functions including the disposal of remaining land (and buildings) surplus to the needs of the operational railways. The land at Station Approach is not required for future railway purposes and my clients have therefore sought to promote and then market the land with the benefit of planning permission as the Company is required to achieve best value for any land that it disposes of.
The B1 consent was therefore obtained by my clients in order to market and sell their site. However, as I explained above the failure of the consortium of landowners that was put together in 2008/2009 (through the Council's refusal of various applications for residential led development on the Former Quick's Garage site) combined with the economic recession (and collapse of the B1 market) has meant that it has simply not been possible for my clients to dispose of the site.
A residential development (once the market has improved) is likely to secure best value for the site, but it appears that this can only be delivered through the relocation of the Stagecoach Depot. If the latter cannot be achieved and no other options come forward in the proposed Scoping Study, then B1 development clearly represents the best and most acceptable alternative land use for the site which, subject to securing a viable scheme in conjunction with adjoining landowners, could also secure best value for my clients and the Government. It is important therefore that my clients interests and options are fully protected and hence the need to maintain the existing B1 'commitment' (my clients intend to renew their B1 consent as it expires in early 2013 and will shortly enter into pre-application discussions with the Council to achieve this).
In relation to the WLP, my clients would support amendments that sought to allocate the Former Goods Yard (and adjoining Network Rail land) for employment (B1) and housing. This could be done under policy PO4 which I note includes sites allocated for housing and mixed-use developments, including employment. This 'dual' allocation would be consistent with the 2008 Brief which as I confirmed supported the development of this land either for housing or B1 (Business) Use. The WLP should also seek to allocate a site for the relocation of the Stagecoach Depot subject of course to the findings of the proposed Scoping Study, as this Study will also assess the potential for residential and/or mixed-use development on all the land north of the Station with the Depot (Bus Garage) remaining in situ on its current site.
I would of course be pleased to discuss these objections further with you in order to resolve my clients concerns and secure appropriate changes to the WLP before it progresses to the Submission stage.

See attached

Attached letter

Full submission attached

See attached

See attached

Thank you for giving the NFU West Midlands Region the opportunity to comment on the Preferred Options Consultation. The NFU is a professional body which represents the interests of 75% of all farmers and growers. Our views are on behalf of the farming and land management sector in general and follow discussion with local members.

It would be appropriate by way of an introduction to offer a few general remarks on farming and the planning system. Clearly food security is a key concern. On a global level it is of absolute importance that the world is able to feed itself; but it is equally important that food is produced in Warwickshire in order to meet our own needs.

The challenge in the 21st century is to increase productivity, maximise output, minimise inputs, achieve environmental sustainability and adapt to a changing climate - all of these challenges are ones which British agriculture is very well placed to meet. It is therefore vital that the planning system helps to ensure that farms can evolve and utilise best environmental practice in order to improve efficiencies and reduce carbon emissions. Our detailed comments on the consultation paper are set out below.

PO3 Broad Location of Growth
The NFU is very supportive of the policy of distributing growth across the District as it will facilitate some growth in smaller rural settlements in order that they remain viable and sustainable. We also welcome the assessment of the Green Belt. It is important to review the situation as the pressures and priorities for development do change. Altering the boundaries and removing some areas could have a positive knock on impact on the agricultural businesses located in these areas. It will give them more opportunities to evolve their businesses in order to remain viable into the future. We would like to enquire why the land south of Harbury Lane, Bishops Tachbrook has been designated greenbelt, as this will constrain the farmers business.

PO4 Distribution of Sites for Housing
We have not made a detailed examination of all the locations outlined in PO4. However, where sites are allocated for development the proximity of the land to existing agricultural business must be examined. Sites should not be allocated for residential development if they are found to be in near proximity to for example an existing livestock unit. We are keen to ensure that development in the countryside does not result in conflict between new residents and existing farm businesses.

The NFU welcomes the support in PO4.D. for rural workers dwellings and the conversion of rural buildings on the edge of settlements. When new dwellings are constructed for farm businesses it is important to ensure that they are able to cope with a range of functions. For example they will almost certainly require adequate space for a farm office and boot room. It is important to note that farming families do not have the option of moving house if they should outgrow their home and this must be recognised when planning new accommodation.

The reuse of redundant rural buildings is a key concern for NFU members. Many of these buildings are no longer suitable for modern agricultural uses for a range of reasons. Having no economic use often means that they fall into disrepair. Therefore in our view it is important that they are given the opportunity of a secure future through redevelopment for residential uses.

PO5 Affordable Housing
The NFU welcomes section B which will facilitate the development of affordable housing in rural areas.

PO8 Economy
The NFU welcomes policy that enables growth of rural businesses and supports the diversification of the rural economy. The NPPF states that "To help achieve economic growth, local planning authorities should plan proactively to meet the development needs of business and support an economy fit for the 21st century". Paragraph 28 of the NPPF contains a very specific reference to supporting a prosperous rural economy; "Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development". It also states that plans should "promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses".

PO14 Transport
The NFU is supportive of the policies aim to provide affordable transport options in villages and rural areas. Unfortunately at the moment there is often no viable alternative to car transport for people who live in rural areas especially if they wish to take up employment.
When considering transport and infrastructure you should be aware that farms and rural businesses are totally reliant on HGV and car transport. Any decisions to target employment away from areas reliant on the road network may have a negative effect upon the rural economy and restrict farm diversification. Tourism also relies on access by private car and new tourism enterprises must not be limited to sites that are accessible by public transport routes.

PO15 Green Infrastructure
Farmers already undertake a range of conservation management measure in order to improve environment quality and enhance biodiversity. This on-going work must be taken into consideration when considering development on farms. Therefore concerns about Green Infrastructure and the creation of Green Wedges should not stifle rural and agricultural development. As we said in the introduction it is possible to increase agricultural productivity whilst continuing to reduce the industry's environmental impacts. By working with farmers and landowners even more can be achieved.
We are concerned by biodiversity offsetting where off site mitigation measures are required. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss how you envisage this working in Warwick District.

PO16 Green Belt
The NFU welcomes the support for farm diversification and rural affordable housing in Policy PO16. These businesses have an essential role in maintaining the local landscape by grazing livestock, maintaining hedgerows and participating in agri-environment schemes. Farms in Green belt areas may need to invest in new buildings or other infrastructure as animal welfare and environmental requirements change. They may also need to diversify their businesses, perhaps by supplying local produce through farm shops. We are also supportive of the flexibility demonstrated in this Green Belt policy as alterations in the boundary must be made in order to support rural development. These changes will help agricultural and rural businesses in the affected areas to develop and evolve in order to ensure their long term viability. However when considering boundary change it is important to safeguard productive agricultural land and it is usually preferable for grade 3 land to be identified for development.

PO18 Flooding and Water
The growth allocations outlined under PO4 will place additional demands on the natural resources of the county. Farmers have a particular interest in this issue as new development will impact upon the surrounding agricultural land. New development sites should have land earmarked for SUDs and green space so that runoff can be captured and managed. We therefore broadly welcome the policy but urge the council to thoroughly investigate these impacts to ensure that adequate water resources and drainage capacity is available to cope with the new demands placed on the District's natural infrastructure.

I hope that you find our contribution to the preferred Options Consultation useful. The NFU is keen to assist the council with the development of planning policy so if you require further information or clarification of any of the points raised in this response please do not hesitate to contact me at the West Midlands Regional Office.

Thank you for your email of 1st June 2012 re the above subject. The Councillors of Baginton Parish Council
have considered the Preferred Options documentation. We have also attended the WRECF meeting of
28.6.12 and the WDC Proposed Development Forum of 2.7.12. We have debated these issues at various
meetings. We have also attended the Gateway Developers presentation at Baginton Village Hall of 19.6.12
where we gained written feedback from many concerned residents.
This letter sets out our opposition to the Gateway proposals, as presented to residents on 19.6.12, being
included in the Local Plan Preferred Options. It also puts forward our preferences regarding housing need for
the area based, on our current Parish Plan. Whilst the majority of the proposals are satisfactory, in our view,
we are alarmed and concerned by tentative proposals to include the "Gateway" in the proposals, as
illustrated in the Preferred Options documents. We write asking you to consider all our comments below
when making your judgement:-
1. BPC oppose Preferred Options 8.15, 8.18 and 8.42 abstracts of which are in Appendix 1 of this
letter. BPC opposes the inclusion of the Gateway shown in Map 3, an abstract of which is shown in
Appendix 2 of this letter. The Gateway proposals are not appropriate development and should not
be included, for reasons as set out below.
2. The NPPF calls for Protecting the Green Belt in section 9. See abstracts of section 9 in Appendix 3
of this letter. Baginton Parish borders with Coventry City. There is a vital need to prevent the
unrestricted sprawl of Coventry into Rural Warwickshire, safeguard the countryside from
encroachment and preserve the setting and special character of our village, with its Roman Fort,
Castle and Grade 1 listed church amongst other things. The gateway proposal is contrary to these
fundamental requirements of the NPPF. The development encroaches on previously undeveloped
Green Belt fields which provide a vital buffer between rural Warwickshire and Coventry City. It is
essential that this buffer remains. BPC believes that WDC have an ideal opportunity to prevent the
urban sprawl of urban Coventry into rural Warwickshire. WDC should not therefore support the
Gateway project, which must be removed from the Preferred Options and local plan. The
development is in the protected Green Belt with no very special circumstances to justify its
existence. The openness of this Green Belt land must be maintained.
3. The environmental effects of the Gateway proposal have not yet been considered and there are
many reasons why such a proposal is unsustainable development adversely affecting the
environment and contrary to the requirements of the NPPF. There is no need for such a
development, which should be omitted from the local plan.
4. The proposal significantly affects the nationally significant Highways Agency Tollbar improvement
scheme; the affects which need to be clearly annotated in the local plan.
5. The Gateway includes a "smart card" system for allowing Baginton residents access to Rowley
road, but with no details of how this would be run.
6. It is noted the large industrial units are envisaged to have 24/7 operations, yet the environmental
effects of 24/7 HGV operations on local rural and other communities has not been considered.
7. The proposals are unsustainable as they fail to comply with fundamental tests in the NPPF. The
proposals are to develop Green Belt land but with no very special circumstances to warrant such
development. It is both necessary and essential for WDC to consider all other developments with
extant planning permission in the wider area. There are many such developments in the locality and
which are suited to developments of this nature, e.g. (but not limited to) the huge sites at Ansty and
Ryton, both with infrastructure already in place. Preferred Options, section 8.42 (Section 8.33 of the
draft Local Plan) specially refers to the Coventry Gateway project, it specifically states 'To
demonstrate that there are not any other preferable and suitable sites'. The above clearly
shows that there are alternative sites available with extant planning permission within the subregion,
and further afield, which provide more than adequate development opportunity, so there is
no need for this development. It is essential that the Local plan includes a requirement to review all
existing developable land in the sub-region and further afield, to ensure the proposals are robust.
BPC demonstrates that there ARE other preferable and suitable sites, so the Gateway should be
excluded.
8. There is no need, either economic or otherwise, for the Gateway proposals to be included in the
local plan. There is no case for releasing land in the Green belt for the Gateway development.
9. The development to the north of the A45, in Coventry, can be developed without destroying the
Green Belt to the south of the A45, providing 4000 jobs for the benefit of the region. There is no
need for the Gateway development south of the A45.
10. The provision of "up to" 14000 jobs is inaccurate and misleading. Given that 4000 of the 14000 jobs
quoted are for development north of the A45, within boundary of Coventry, already with planning
permission granted to another developer (Whitley Business Park), it is wholly inaccurate for the
Local Plan to headline up to 14000 jobs. Of the remaining 10,000 jobs, it is highly likely that these
will not be newly created jobs, but in the main taking jobs form elsewhere in the sub region and
further afield. These jobs can and should be created using the vast acreage of sites in the sub
region, and nearby, which are already available, or have infrastructure already in place, or have
extant planning permission, or which are otherwise far more suitable to gain planning permission.
The local plan should quote a realistic level of job creation, within WDC only, accounting for all
other sites.
11. The closing of the Bubbenhall Road and Rowley Road to the general public will destroy the many
local rural businesses which thrive in Baginton Parish, e.g. Baginton Village Store, Hong Kong
House, Smiths Nurseries, Russell's Nurseries, Oak Farm, The Old Mill, The Oak Pub, British
Legion Club and many others. Each would be adversely affected and forced to close with the loss
of jobs, adversely affecting the local sustainable community, contrary to the NPPF. It is absolutely
essential that the Bubbenhall and Rowley Roads be maintained as a pubic right of way with the
present alignment between Baginton and Bubbenhall, to maintain the sustainability of local rural
businesses hence comply with a fundamental aspect of the NPPF.
12. BPC are also concerned that the provision of a new road west of the runway could be put into a
deep cutting which would pave the way for future runway expansion. It is absolutely essential that
the Bubbenhall Road be maintained as a pubic right of way with the present alignment between
Baginton and Bubbenhall, to prevent the Airport from runway expansion in the long term. See old
proposals from September 2002 in Appendix 4 of this letter. BPC acknowledges this is not part of
current proposals but BPC are most concerned that the proposed Bubbenhall Road alterations
could facilitate the opportunity to allow such development in the future. This must not be allowed to
be facilitated, by ensuring the Bubbenhall Road stays as it is and the proposed alterations shown
on the Preferred Options are omitted from the emerging Local Plan.
13. The documents presented do not adequately correlate the requirements of the NPPF with the
proposals for the Gateway. The proposals are not therefore robust in the view of BPC, so the
proposals should be omitted.
14. There is an excellent "Green Infrastructure" opportunity to maintain the undeveloped green belt
green fields which lie to the South of the A45 and which will be adversely affected by the Gateway
project. Instead of the Gateway WDC should give consideration to developing this area under the
Green infrastructure scheme. This will have the advantage of ensuring that the surrounding areas,
such as Baginton Parish, do not suffer from urban sprawl and maintain important opportunities for
Flora and Fauna to flourish. The planted buffer zone to the urban sprawl proposed for the Gateway
is insufficient compensation for the loss of the undeveloped green belt green fields which presently
act as a natural buffer between urban Coventry and rural Warwickshire. It is also far to close to the
Lunt Roman Fort. The Gateway should be omitted from the Local Plan.
15. BPC are very concerned that the Preferred Options summary leaflet makes no mention of the
Gateway development, only showing "highway improvements as per abstract from the summary in
Appendix 5 of this letter, which are as per Map 5 of the preferred options.... This is
misrepresentative of the developer's intentions. The public are not therefore being afforded the
opportunity to see the true extent of the proposals in the summary leaflet, so are not being afforded
the opportunity to comment. This must be rectified by modifying the summary document to include
the developer's true intentions. These are not highway improvements but will destroy public
highway rights of way which are essential for the prosperity of the many rural businesses which
thrive in this area and which will be destroyed by the Gateway development. These are not
improvements but will serve to develop a huge area of green belt land and create urban sprawl,
contrary to the principles in the NPPF. It is essential that these proposals be omitted from the
Local Plan
16. The 12.3.12 WDC map entitled "unrestricted natural and green corridor greater than 2Ha" doesn't
show the green space south of the A45 which forms a natural barrier between Coventry and
Warwickshire, and is undeveloped Greenfield Greenbelt land protecting Baginton from urban
sprawl. The map should be amended, the area recognised as such and the area not allowed to be
developed.
17. Councilors believe that the Gateway proposals, by a private developer who also owns the Airport
and who is also past and proposed Chairman of the Local Enterprise Partnership promoting the
development, are foisting an unwanted and unnecessary development on Baginton village which
will ruin this rural village community, destroy essential Green Belt and destroy its local amenities
and businesses. The quality of life of Baginton and Bubbenhall residents will be significantly
adversely affected by the Gateway proposals. The proposal is against resident's basic human rights
under the Human Rights Act, due to the traffic and operations noise from huge warehouse logistics
development which will run 24 hours per day, seven days per week, with especially adverse effects
at night and weekends. Cllrs anticipate significant HGV traffic movements all night which will be
particularly disturbing to residents.
18. The Gateway development in not sustainable compared with other nearby developments with
extant planning permission, which are sustainable.
19. The proposed smart card access system for local residents and businesses is impracticable and
unworkable, with no one willing to operate it, certainly not Baginton PC. It is understood alternatives
are under consideration but based on what BPC are aware of at this time these proposals are
damaging to the village and must not be allowed to proceed.
20. The proposals put into jeopardy the construction of the Highways Agency Tollbar Island proposals
due to commence early next year. The proposals will not facilitate major improvements to the road
network not already covered by the HA proposals, but will only add to the traffic in this area.. In
addition, the proposals will only add to the traffic in this area, so will not facilitate improvements
over and above what is already proposed by the HA, so the statement must be removed from Para
8.33 of the draft.
21. It is noted from the presentation on the Local Plan by WDC of 28.6.12, at Baginton Village Hall, that
there is 23 hectares of business development land proposed within WDC boundaries separate to
that of the Gateway. Noting that many commercial premises within the sub region, and slightly
further afield in Solihull, lie empty and unused at this time, the additional 23 hectares of business
development land is more than sufficient to satisfy the need for economic growth without the
Gateway project. There is no need for the Gateway project and this must be omitted from the
proposals
22. BPC believes it is entirely inappropriate for WDC to support the C&W Gateway proposals, which
are against the fundamental principles of the NPPF, adversely affects the environment, adversely
affects Parish residents human rights to peace and quiet, will destroy rural businesses based in
Warwickshire, will develop on high quality green field Green Belt with no very special
circumstances, will create urban sprawl and which will jeopardise industrial development elsewhere
in the local area which already has planning permission or has been previously developed and will
destroy the openness of the area, amongst other things. The Gateway should be removed from the
Local Plan
23. Councillors believe there is a clear conflict of interest between the LEP, which we understand is to
be once again chaired by the Owner of both development companies, Sir Peter Rigby, and the
broader requirements of the residents of WDC. BPC Cllrs reinforce the need for WDC to be
independent and not compromise its integrity through the forced will of a developer who is intent on
ruining our unspoiled corner of rural Warwickshire for financial gain. It is wrong therefore to refer to
the LEP within the Local Plan.
24. WDC should modify the proposals to state that its preferred option is to utilise to the maximum
capacity all sites in the sub region with extant planning permission prior to developing any further
site on Green Belt Land. WDC should review all existing developed land within the sub-region. It is
vital that WDC explores and justifies the case for releasing land within the Green Belt when existing
Brownfield and other sites with extant planning permission exist within the sub region remain underutilised
and unoccupied.
25. BPC observes that the Gateway proposals do not protect the character and scale of the village, nor
the openness of the rural countryside around the village, so should be omitted.
26. BPC has already gained written feedback from almost one hundred residents, all of whom believe
the Gateway proposal is damaging to Baginton and there is no justification for ruining the Green
Belt. All wish to see the Green Belt protected. It is essential that WDC takes account of the wishes
of all local residents and excludes this development from the local plan.
27. All the above demonstrates that the Gateway site, which is stated in 8.18 as being "identified as a
site of regional importance for employment to serve the regeneration needs of the Coventry and
Warwickshire sub region" is fundamentally incorrect, fundamentally unnecessary and fundamentally
against most requirements of the NPPF, so should be omitted from the local plan.
Regarding housing policy, Baginton has a Parish Plan and requests that the deliverables in this document be
accounted for by WDC in formulating the Local Plan. In particular please note the below comments:-
28. BPC supports modest sustainable increases to housing in accordance with our letter L075A to
WDC of 8.1.12, a copy of which is enclosed as Appendix 6. This is based on the output from the
Baginton Parish Plan. The Local Plan should include opportunity related to small scale sustainable
development of this nature, to retain the nature and character of the village and help to support the
many local rural businesses in the village. Please note in particular that in all cases any housing
shall be wholly in character with the village, be sympathetic to the amenity of existing
properties/people and shall not interfere with the Green Belt. BPC opposes the Gateway
development on the Green Belt to protect the rural nature of our village, to protect the openness of
the area and to protect the surrounding area from urban sprawl.
29. BPC objects to the classification of villages generally. The Local Plan must not dictate the type of
housing development to villages, but rather should take into account village desires under the
Localism act and in the case of Baginton, our Parish Plan. In this respect we again ask WDC to
account for our letter L075A as point Nr 28 above.
In conclusion, BPC consider that the proposed gateway is entirely inappropriate and ill considered
unsustainable development, contrary to fundamental requirements of the NPPF, with no need given the
significant size and number of underutilised employment creating developments which already exist with full
planning permission in the Coventry and Warwickshire sub region area and further afield. There are no very
special circumstances to develop on the Green Belt, rural businesses need to be protected, urban sprawl
must be prevented and the openness of this Green Belt land must be maintained.
BPC oppose all Gateway development south of the A45 and recommend that the Gateway be omitted from
the Preferred Options and excluded from the Local Plan, with any development limited only to that shown to
the north of the A45, which is within the boundary of Coventry City Council, utilising Ansty, Ryton and other
existing suitable sites for any economic development over and above the 23 hectares already allowed for
within the Preferred Options and emerging Local Plan. Housing policy should follow our recommendations in
Appendix 6 herein.
Please confirm you will consider all the above and confirm you will omit all aspects of the damaging and
unsustainable Gateway development from the emerging Local Plan, within the boundary of WDC.

See attached

Scanned representation

PO1 Preferred Option: Level of growth
I consider that the proposed level of housing growth of 555 homes per year is not supported by all the evidence available. The mathematics of the calculations are not shown so they cannot be checked easily.
The baseline population on which the future need is apparently calculated is the ONS estimate of 138,670. Since those calculations the 2011 census has measured it at 136,000.
The initial stage of consultation gave a range of growth possibilities and the clear majority of respondents opted for the lower growth levels which would more reasonably reflect the inevitable organic growth in our population due to increased longevity, better health and changes in birth rates along with some inevitable inward migration.
Residents made a clear choice to accept lower infrastructure gains in return for limiting growth and specifically avoiding more growth in excess of local need.
Approximately 250 homes per year would appear to be more than adequate to meet these need if more adventurous use of brownfield urban sites was made..

PO2 Preferred Option: Community Infrastructure Levy
The current market conditions demonstrate that because developers are not confident in the ability of customers to buy, and sites that already have planning approvals are not proceeding.
CIL should be used on a local benefit to relieve effects of or immediately related to development proposal areas.


PO3 Preferred Option: Broad location of Growth
I supports the dispersal of additional housing that cannot be located on urban brownfield sites so there is a small effect on a number of places, rather than a large effect on a few. In general, this will reduce travel and demand for traffic improvements, use existing educational, health and other community facilities where there is available capacity to do so.
The NPPF para 54 requires that in rural areas, local authorities should be responsive to local circumstances, planning housing development to reflect local needs. In para 55, to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.

PO4 Preferred Option: Distribution of sites for housing
Location 1 Sites within existing towns. This is the best option. If it were possible, all the housing required should be in existing towns and dispersed therein, to make the least demand on support infrastructure and reducing traffic movements.
Location 2 Myton Garden Suburb. No objection.
Location 3 South of Gallows Hill/West of Europa Way. This development must not take place. It is a criminal intrusion into the rural southern setting of both Warwick and Leamington with important implications for the setting of Warwick Castle and its parkland. It will create a natural infill area for later development until eventually all the area south of Warwick and Leamington id completely filled.
The additional traffic from the proposed 1600 homes plus employment on a road system that is already struggling will impose even greater stacking effects back through the village of Barford which already suffers enormous amounts of rat-running from commuters trying to avoid the daily J15/Banbury Spur commuter
The numbers show that it is not needed and the council needs to bold enough to decide to continue the Green Wedge through to Castle Park.
Location 4 Milverton Gardens. 810houses + community +employment + open space.
and
Location 5 Blackdown. 1170 houses+ employment +open space + community.
These two sites may well be cases where the Greenbelt policy could be relaxed with limited overall damage whilst providing essential housing land. There would be limited damage to the settlement separation intentions of the Greenbelt policy.


Location 6 Whitnash East/ South of Sydenham. 650 houses + open space and community facilities
No specific comment but is this really required?
Location 7 Thickthorn, Kenilworth 770 houses + employment +open space + community
Use of this as part of the policy for dispersal of the housing required is supported.
It is, better to use this site than land of rural, landscape and environmental value elsewhere in the district. It is the only contribution to the preferred option plan located in or near Kenilworth.
Location 8 Red House Farm, Lillington 200 houses + open space.
This would seem to be a reasonable site to utilise if numbers demand it.
Location 9 Loes Farm, Warwick 180 houses + open space
This would seem to be a reasonable site to utilise if numbers demand it.
Location 10 Warwick Gates Employment land 200 houses + open space.
No objection.
Location 11 Woodside Farm, Tachbrook Road 250 houses + open space
There seem to be merits in using this site as it extends previously developed land towards a natural boundary (Harbury Lane) and is hence self-limiting.

Location 12 Fieldgate Lane/Golf Lane, Whitnash 90 houses + open space
No objection.
Locations 13 &14 Category 1 & 2 villages Category 1, 5 villages at 100 and category 2, 7 villages at between 30 to 80 in each plus 8 category 3 villages within the existing village envelopes.
These are very significant increases for many of these villages! Do the category One villages really NEED to take 500 in total or 100 each. In Barford's case this will be an 18% increase in the number of dwellings, and that on top of a recent development of approximately 70 homes. I would suggest that the total Cat One numbers should be significantly reduced and that numbers should then be spread pro-rata over all the Cat one villages according to current house numbers of population number to give a more equitable spread and certainly to keep the increases at or below the district wide increase.
Considerable attention should be paid to the Sustainability Assessments included in the plan where it should be noted that Barford, a Category one village based on its facilities scores the THIRD WORST Sustainability score of all the villages assessed (Cat one, two and three) with only Rowington and Norton Lindsey scoring lower.

Furthermore despite having a very successful school there is considerable doubt about how such numbers could be accommodated and the amount of harm that would be inflicted on currently resident families and pupils of such increases.


PO5 Preferred Option: Affordable housing
I have considerable concerns that the 40% requirement is considerably in excess of the real need for "social housing" and as such will drive up the costs of market homes to such a degree that all homes will become significantly less affordable. It is perhaps appropriate to consider what is trying to be achieved and to review the way in which Affordable Housing need is actually measured - specifically it seems that those in need are counted before their need is actually validated whereafter the real need is actually considerably less and they are re-routed to more conventional housing sources.
PO6 Preferred Option: Mixed communities and a wide choice of homes
Regarding retirement housing of various sorts must be provided as part of a whole-life

PO7 Preferred Option: gypsies and travellers.
The Gypsies and travellers remain and always will be a problem. Most tax-payers are at a loss to understand why they must be treated differently to everyone else when they could acquire land and pursue the planning process just like everyone else.
The proposal to "provide sites" will bring out the worst elements of the NIMBY culture and blight certain areas.
It is my opinion that the problem needs solving by primary legislation not the current soft PC approach. This is a job for central government, no doubt through "Europe".

PO8 Preferred Option: Economy
Employment need only be provided/attracted to match our population. The previous stage of the consultation gave a clear indication that the majority were preferring to accept lower growth rates of housing, employment and infrastructure. That choice must be selected and a focus on consolidation rather than growth should be the watchword. We are a low unemployment area and any extra employment provision will bring with it a proportionate housing demand and inevitably more houses, which is not required.
The Gateway project may still materialise and this will make extra demands as some of the jobs will no doubt be attractive to our residents in addition to bringing in new workers. Provision should be made for housing local to that site and not for such workers to be subsumed into the wider WDC area.

PO9 Preferred options: Retailing and Town Centres
The support retailing and town centres is welcomed and should be vigorously pursued by both planning policy and fiscal incentives. There must be adequate town centre parking provision to support town centre businesses.

PO14 Preferred options: Transport

Access to services and facilities.
Clearly, it is essential to provide sufficient transport infrastructure to give access to services and facilities. The amount of work required is dependent on the level of growth selected. If the low growth scenario is chosen in preference to the current preferred option, then the infrastructure improvements will be much less and probably not much more than is currently necessary to resolve existing problems. This would be less costly and less inconvenient to the public than major infrastructure improvements.

Sustainable forms of transport.
The best way is to keep as much new housing provision as possible in existing urban locations because people are then more likely to walk, bus, bike to work, shops, school etc.


PO15 Preferred options: Green Infrastructure

The policies set out in PO15 are supported


PO16 Preferred options: Green Belt

The NPPF states that once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. I believe that it may be a proper time to review the Green belt to ensure that it is appropriate to the current situation and not merely being carried forward, just because it has always been so. Some relaxation within villages and on the edges of the major settlements would make massive contributions to the housing need whilst doing little harm to the concept of ensuring separation between settlements.

Removing Green Belt status from rural villages would allow currently unavailable infil land to make a significant contribution to housing numbers whilst improving the sustainability of those villages. Barford, not in the Green belt has had considerable infil in the past and as such is relatively sustainable whilst actually scoring poorly on the WDC conventional Sustainability Assessment scoring system.



PO17 Preferred options: Culture & Tourism

The preferred option of medium growth seems to be totally oblivious of the value of the approach road from the south to the Castle. It proposes to materially downgrade the approach past Castle Park by building housing along the length of the road from Greys Mallory to Warwick, a distance of about 2.5 km. The views across the rolling countryside to the east of the approach road are an essential part of the character of the district and county about which books have been written.

The low growth option makes that loss unnecessary.

PO18 Preferred options: Flooding & Water

Flooding: Development should take place where flooding is unlikely to occur. The low growth option would make it easier to select sites for development that do not carry this risk.

Scanned representation

Scanned representation

See Attachments

Scanned representation

On behalf of Barwood Strategic Land LLP and the landowners we write in support of their
respective interests at land 'south of Gallows Hill/ west of Europa Way, Warwick'. This site is
identified in the Local Plan Preferred Options as a location for growth delivering 1,600 dwellings
in phases 2 and 3 of the plan period along with employment land, open space and community
facilities.
Land interests within the proposed allocation are also held by William Davies and Hallam Land;
it is intended that all developers and landowners will work together to secure a comprehensive
masterplanning approach to the development of this site.
We respond to the respective policy areas and chapters below:
1. Part 1: Setting the Scene and Summary
- In setting the strategy, it should be made clear the time period that the plan is proposed
to cover. For example, at 1.2, there is reference to the next 15 years and only later in
the document is confirmed that that the plan period covers 2011 to 2029.
- It is noted that paragraph 4.2 makes reference to the fact that the District could grow by
as much as 15% over the next 15 years (from a current population of 138,800) - this
represents an increase of some 20,820 residents. We highlight that the 2008 based
household projections shows growth from 62,938 households in 2011 to 77,955
households in 2029. This represents an increase of 15,557 households. The 2006
based projections showed 17,110 households over the same period. The 2010 based
population projections show very similar population growth to the 2008 based projections
and although the latter remain the most up to date, it is expected that the 2010 based
CLG household projections will be very similar.
- Paragraph 4.10 should be revised to make reference to the need to ensure that Local
Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing as
required by the NPPF.
2. Delivering Growth - Housing / PO1: Preferred Level of Growth
- The preferred level of housing growth is proposed to be 600 dwellings per annum
(totalling 10,800 dwellings) over the plan period, which when deducting commitments,
small SHLAA sites and windfalls results in a need to identify and allocate land for 6,986
dwellings. The Council have disregarded Option 2 (employment led growth and 700
dwellings per annum) seemingly solely on the basis that there is a lack of certainty that a
sufficient number of homes on strategic sites could be delivered within the plan period.
Using the Council's own calculations, delivering 700 dwellings per annum would result in
the need for an additional 1,800 dwellings to be found on allocated sites. Part of the
justification relates to the perceived lead in times for the delivery of the larger sites;
however the Council's own phasing programme is a self-fulfilling prophecy in this regard.
Phasing the larger allocations in Phases 2 and 3 (i.e. post 2019) could result in a
significant number of dwellings coming to the market at the same time and making it
difficult to therefore deliver an additional 1,800 dwellings in full within the plan period.
3 of 6
We would suggest that the Council allows the market and the development industry to
regulate itself in respect of the phasing and the timing of the delivery of development.
To allow the larger allocations to make a start earlier in the plan period will ensure
steady delivery of housing over the life of the plan. It is not in a developer's own interest
to saturate the market however steady delivery on a number of sites over a number of
years will promote healthy competition and ensure sufficient time to allow such sites to
be built out in full. Furthermore, in doing this, there would exist the opportunity to
allocate land for the 'missing' 1,800 dwellings which would make a bigger step towards
meeting the Council's housing need.
- In addition, we highlight that the NPPF makes reference to development which is
sustainable going ahead without delay. It follows that in order for a site to have secured
an allocation in what will be an adopted Local Plan, that site must be sustainable and
therefore in accordance with the NPPF, there is no need for that site to be held back by
an arbitrary phasing policy.
- The Localism Act enshrines a Duty to Cooperate on Local Authorities when preparing
plans. In the event that Warwick District does not meet its own housing need in full, we
see no evidence of adjoining LPA's being prepared to take on and meet that need. The
District is bounded by the following LPA's:
- Stratford District: Latest draft Core Strategy did not propose to accommodate sufficient
growth to meet its own needs. No proposals to meet unmet need from Warwick District.
- Coventry: Latest draft Local Plan does not propose to accommodate sufficient growth to
meet its own needs. No proposals to meet unmet need from Warwick District.
- Rugby Borough: Adopted Core Strategy does not include any proposals to accommodate
unmet need from Warwick District.
- It is not therefore clear the way in which the Duty to Cooperate has been carried forward
or the way in which the District's housing need will be met in full, particularly given that
the household increase is projected to be closer to 15,557 households rather than the
10,800 households currently being planned for.
- Further justification for using lower housing targets is provided in paragraph 5.22 where
it is stated that using Option 2 would meet the projected change in employment between
2011 and 2031 as identified in the West Midlands Integrated Policy Model. However the
Council consider this to now be optimistic as it was carried out in 2010 and forecast an
increase in employment growth from 2011. We highlight however that throughout the
NPPF there is reference to the need to 'plan positively' and the need to stimulate and
secure economic growth. It would appear that the Council are revising their growth for
the period to 2029 (i.e. the long term) because short term growth has failed to
materialise. This cannot be said to be planning positively or assisting in securing
economic growth.
4 of 6
3. PO3: Location of Growth
- The components of growth are reviewed below:
- Committed Housing Sites (1,224 dwellings): whilst clearly committed sites, we question
whether it is appropriate to include all of these sites and not include any allowance for
non-implementation. A 10% non-implementation rate is the industry 'norm' which we
consider should be applied here, thus reducing the commitments to 1,102 dwellings.
- Small Urban SHLAA sites (290): We seek clarification as to where these sites fall within
Table 7.2 of the Draft Local Plan (DLP).
- Other Windfall Housing Sites (2,300): Paragraph 7.25 of the DLP confirms that the
Council consider there to be a limited supply of land within the existing built up areas of
the towns. Windfalls can be included if the Council can demonstrate that such sites have
consistently become available in the local area and will continue to form a reliable source
of supply having regard to the SHLAA. The Council's SHLAA methodology confirms that
a minimum site size of 5 dwellings was used and that Officer's did not rely solely on sites
which supplied to them by developers or landowners but also conducted their own
research including reviewing areas currently in non residential use and looking at small
scale developments such as change of use of existing buildings. It would therefore
appear that the Council have had every opportunity to identify suitable residential sites
and include them in the SHLAA. With the removal of rear garden land from the definition
of previously developed land, we consider that the scope for new windfall development is
much reduced and that windfalls will no longer continue to make up a significant element
of future supply. Furthermore, under the banner of the NPPF and the requirement to
plan positively, windfalls should be seen as a 'bonus' rather than forming approximately
20% of the overall supply.
Land South of Gallows Hill
- The distribution of housing growth across the District is supported with particular
reference to Land South of Gallows Hill. It is noted that within the Council's Landscape
Character Assessment (February 2009), it is concluded that the study area is not suitable
and the rural character should be safeguarded from development. It is however clear
that this study has considered landscape character in isolation and this study should be
considered 'in the round' as is only one part of the evidence base underpinning the Local
Plan. The NPPF is clear that economic growth is a priority and that economic, social and
environmental factors have to be balanced against each other.
- The developers of this site will be commissioning technical and environmental work to
underpin the draft allocations; this will include detailed landscape and visual work to
demonstrate ways in which the site can be developed without adverse landscape impact.
- Whilst the developers will be working together to ensure a comprehensive approach to
the delivery of the site, we consider it important to recognise that within this should exist
the flexibility to ensure that each developer can bring parts of the site forward at their
own pace within an overall masterplanned approach. The delivery of large sites is often
5 of 6
hampered by requirements to submit a single planning application which can cause
significant delays and is often to the detriment of the site itself.
4. PO5: Affordable Housing
- Whilst we do not object to the provision of affordable housing in principle, we do not see
any up to date evidence of the way in which the appropriateness of the target as been
assessed in terms of the financial viability of development in accordance with paragraphs
173 and 174 of the NPPF. Paragraph 7.43 of the DLP makes reference to a November
2011 document and an Addendum dated May 2012. The May 2012 document does not
feature in the Evidence Base on the Council's web-site and therefore we reserve the
right to make further representations in this respect upon publication of this document.
5. PO6: Mixed Communities and a Wide Choice of Housing
- We consider that sufficient flexibility should be included within any policy to ensure that
account is taken of up to date market demand in addition to the SHMA's. The latter can
become obsolete very quickly and clearly, if developers feel there is no demand for a
particular type of property then they will not build it, which can result in stalled sites and
lower rates of housing delivery.
- Lifetime Homes: there is no national policy which requires the provision of Lifetime
Homes and we see no justification which supports 25% provision.
- Homes for Older People: whilst the provision of extra care housing is supported, these
have very site specific criteria with operators having specific requirements in respect of
site location and suitability. A site which is suitable for market housing may not be
suitable for extra care housing and it is important to ensure that this policy is not applied
so rigidly so as to sterilise areas of land or stall sites.
6. PO8: Economy
- It is noted that the Council propose to consider allocating a 'proportion' of the site south
of Gallows Hill for employment. The provision of mixed use development is supported
although clearly further clarification is required on the definition of 'a proportion'.
7. PO10: Built Environment
- The Council's Garden Towns, Suburbs and Villages prospectus is supported.
8. PO12: Climate Change
- We have reviewed the Council's evidence base and do not see any case for the
introduction of a 20% climate change policy. We are also disappointed to see a
continued emphasis on renewable energy provision within new developments (when the
Council themselves acknowledge the disadvantages with some renewable technologies)
as opposed to the emphasis being placed on energy efficiency. If the overall aim is seek
a reduction in carbon emissions, we fail to see why this should be achieved through
renewable energy rather than energy efficiency measures.
6 of 6
9. PO18: Flooding and Water
- Whilst the policy as a whole is supported it is noted that much of this replicates national
guidance and is therefore superfluous. Furthermore, the requirement that all new
developments include SUDS is unfeasible. There are some instances where SUDS
schemes are not feasible or viable and this should be recognised within the policy.
10. Draft Infrastructure Planning
- Whilst the provision of a draft Infrastructure Plan is supported to assist in providing
certainty to developers when bringing forward new sites, particularly in respect of the
larger strategic sites. We consider that further refinement of this plan may be needed.
For example, within Warwick and Leamington Spa, 6 new primary schools are currently
being considered at the same time as capacity in a number of existing schools is also
identified. It is noted that the NPPF advocates a CIL charging schedule being prepared
in tandem with a Local Plan if possible and we consider this may be appropriate in this
case to assist in determining the total cost of items identified in the Draft Infrastructure
Plan. This is of particular importance when reviewing the Strategic Transport
Assessment Overview Report which identifies a requirement of up to circa £5,000 per
property for transport infrastructure without taking into account any other infrastructure
requirements or planning obligations.

Attached

See scanned letter and response forms

Scanned representation

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 RPS Planning and Development (RPS) has been instructed by Lenco Investments (Lenco) to
prepare representations to the Warwick District Council New Local Plan Preferred Options
consultation document, in respect of their land interests at Baginton.
1.2 Warwick District Council (the Council) has proposed their Preferred Options in terms of housing
and economic growth and their vision for the district generally over the plan period to 2029.
These are currently being consulted upon until 27 July 2012.
1.3 RPS has made representations on behalf of Lenco to the previous stages of both the Warwick
Local Development Framework and the Coventry Core Strategy, to ensure a suitable approach is
taken to cross boundary development led growth.
1.4 Lenco's land interests at Baginton relate to a site which lies to the south of Baginton village
situated within the Green Belt, as shown at Appendix 1. It is important to note that Lenco has the
controlling interest in the majority of this land.
1.5 The site Lenco has interests in lies to the south of Baginton village, and. The site extends to
approximately 50ha and is in a sustainable location within easy access to Coventry City Centre,
close to the perimeter edge of the airport, with excellent cycle, pedestrian access to the
surrounding areas, and vehicular access to major transport links such as the A45 and A46.
1.6 Whilst the site falls within the local authority area of Warwick District it remains very close to
Coventry's administrative boundary, as well as the major sub regional employment base centred
on Coventry Airport. RPS is aware of the current proposals to expand Coventry Airport, and a housing development at Baginton would support these expansion plans.
1.7 The representations, therefore, address the need for housing growth within Warwick
administrative boundary and suggest that large-scale growth should be situated within close
proximity of employment development to ensure that people can live and work in close proximity.
Such proposals will support the Government's objectives to encourage economic growth in order
to revive the economy. Furthermore, these representations address the need for cross-boundary
growth and for full and proper cross-boundary working to be established between, Warwick,
Coventry and Nuneaton and Bedworth Boroughs as required by the Localism Act and NPPF.
1.8 The following chapter provides details about the site at Baginton, and our comments in response
to the Preferred Options document are provided in Chapter 3 and are set out in the same format
as the Council's response forms.
1.9 RPS are willing to meet with Planning Officers from Warwick District Council again concerning
Lenco's land interests and the New Local Plan process to discuss the potential of the site in
meeting local housing needs.
2 LAND SOUTH OF BAGINTON
2.1 The site Lenco has interests in extends to approximately 50ha and lies to the south of Bagington
village. The site is in a sustainable location close to Coventry City's boundary and the urban
area, and within easy access to the City Centre, and major transport links such as the A45 and
A46. The site, being close to the perimeter edge of the airport, with excellent cycle, pedestrian
and vehicular access, provides an exceptional opportunity for the provision of balanced housing
growth in the most sustainable manner.
Planning Policy
2.2 The Local Plan Preferred Options promotes 10,800 new dwellings within Warwick District for the
plan period up to 2029, at an annual delivery rate of 600 dwellings a year.
2.3 Evidence advanced by the West Midlands regional assembly for the West Midlands RSS
Examination in July 2009 from the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research,
based on 2006 ONS Household Projections and allowing for the economic downturn, concluded
that Warwick District's housing requirement between 2006 and 2026 was 18,200 dwellings at a
rate of 910 dwellings/year. Whilst the RSS is not longer in place, the evidence base is still to be
taken into account by Local Planning Authorities in preparing development plan documents.
2.4 The 2012 Strategic Housing Market Assessment indicates a requirement of 698 dwellings a year
to meet the affordable housing needs of the District in addition to market housing needs, which
is significantly higher than the level of housing currently being proposed by the Council.
2.5 The 2008 ONS Household Projections predicted an increase of 17,000 households between
2008 and 2028, at a rate of 850 dwellings a year. This represents an additional 150 dwellings a
year than is currently proposed through the Local Plan, which clearly will not meet the District's
identified need for new homes.
2.6 RPS is also aware that the 2012 SHLAA indicates that the District has a supply of deliverable
sites to provide 13,385 dwellings between 2014 and 2029, excluding windfalls, which is greater
than the numbers proposed within the Local Plan. Therefore the Council has identified the
ability to deliver housing sites at a higher annual rate than is currently proposed through the
Preferred Option.
2.7 RPS, on behalf of Lenco, therefore believes that the proposed figure of 10,800 new dwellings is
insufficient and that a higher level of growth would better reflect the projected population
increase and ensure that identified housing needs can be met, as suggested within the evidence
base. The Council cannot meet a higher target without locating housing on greenfield of Green
Belt land, and therefore should consider sustainable locations outside of the urban areas to
ensure housing needs can be appropriately met.
Cross-boundary Growth
2.8 The NPPF states that Local Planning Authorities have a 'duty to co-operate' on cross-boundary
planning issues, in particular for strategic priorities including housing, to meet development
needs which cannot be met solely within their own administrative boundaries.
6 rpsgroup.com
2.9 It has been recognised in Coventry's SHLAA assessment that the Council cannot meet their
housing targets on land within their administrative boundary alone. It is considered, therefore,
that Green Belt locations on the periphery of the urban area should be recognised as
appropriate locations for accommodating future growth.
2.10 The Green Belt south of Coventry was recognised through the Warwick Core Strategy process as
being an appropriate location for accommodating future growth of the City. Although the site is
within Warwick District it lies close to Coventry's administrative boundary, as well as the major
sub regional employment base centred on Coventry Airport.
Coventry Airport
2.11 Whilst both Coventry Airport's major sub regional employment base and Baginton village are
located outside of Coventry's local authority boundary, they are socially and economically
associated and physically adjoin the Coventry urban area. Residential development in this
location at Baginton could balance the existing significant employment base on the southern
side of Coventry, such as those around the airport at Stonebridge Trading Estate and
Middlemarch Business Park, both of which are within a very short distance of the site, as well as
the air freight and terminal employment opportunities.
2.12 RPS is also aware of the current Coventry and Warwickshire Gateway Scheme proposals
(Appendix 2) to expand Coventry Airport, and a housing development at Baginton would support
these expansion plans. RPS recommends that housing supply is focused in those areas where
there are important benefits to be gained where future economic growth is planned.
Site at Baginton
2.13 A residential-led mixed use development at Baginton could contribute sustainably to crossboundary
growth as required by the NPPF, and to meeting both Warwick District and Coventry
City's housing needs by delivering approximately 1,000 new homes either in isolation or as part
of the wider regeneration proposals for the area. The location of the site in relation to the
Gateway proposals is shown at Appendix 3.
2.14 Development at this location would also allow for new facilities and services to be provided,
making the best use of existing and proposed infrastructure. The site can be appropriately
phased over the Local Plan period to develop an available, suitable and deliverable urban
extension proposal.
2.15 The promotional document 'Land south of Baginton: A Sustainable Urban Extension' prepared in
2008 has previously been submitted to the Council and provides further details of how the site
could be sustainably developed.
2.16 In addition to this, extensive technical surveys in relation to flood risk, noise, ecology,
conservation and heritage, landscape, and highways have been undertaken of the site and
submitted to the Council, to demonstrate the site's suitability for a significant residential-led
development either in isolation or in connection with proposals for the wider area. An Air Quality
Assessment will also be undertaken to demonstrate the site's suitability for development.
2.17 RPS, therefore, considers that to help deliver greater sustainable development opportunities, it is
important that sufficient housing land comes forward in areas of proven market demand, such as on this Green Belt site to the south of Baginton, to contribute towards delivery of additional
dwellings and higher levels of growth to meet the needs of both Councils.
2.18 Responses to individual policies and topics within the Preferred Options consultation document
are included in the following chapter

Whitnash Town Council respond to each of the Preferred Options in turn, and
make comments in respect of the Vision and Objectives.
Vision and Objectives
We broadly support the Vision and Objectives for the Local Plan, but reserve
our position on the level of housing supply, for the reasons set out in our
response to PO1 below.
PO1 - Level of Growth
In principle we agree that sufficient housing should be provided across the
District to meet future housing needs. However, we are unable to comment on
the proposed level of an average provision on 555 per annum on allocated
sites, plus windfalls, as housing numbers are an immensely technical issue.
Notwithstanding this, we are very concerned that Warwick District and
Coventry City Councils are failing to exercise their statutory Duty to Cooperate
under the Localism Act 2011 by not addressing the important matter
of cross-boundary housing need.
We are concerned that, in its current state, the proposed strategy will be
found to be "unsound" by the Inspector at the eventual Examination. This
could well result in additional housing provision having to be made, and this
would have clear implications for non-Green Belt areas, such as those
surrounding Whitnash.
We therefore urge the District Council to effectively exercise the Duty to Cooperate
with Coventry in respect of cross-boundary housing provision at this
WHITNASH TOWN COUNCIL
Franklin Road Town Clerk
Whitnash Mrs J A Mason
Warwickshire Email: jenny.mason@whitnashtowncouncil.gov.uk
CV31 2JH
Telephone and Fax: 01926 470394
2
stage, therefore preventing the danger of the Local Plan being found
"unsound" in the future and the Council having to consequently revise its
strategy and land allocations.
PO2 - Community Infrastructure Levy
We fully support the District Council in seeking to introduce a CIL scheme as
the Town Council considers it vital that full and appropriate infrastructure
provision is made, in advance of development wherever possible. It is
essential, however, that the funds raised are used to develop infrastructure in
the areas where the impacts will be felt, irrespective of Town and Parish
administrative boundaries.
We look forward to seeing and commenting upon the Infrastructure Delivery
Plan in due course.
PO3 - Broad Location of Growth
We support the strategy to make Green Belt releases to the north of
Leamington. For the first time in many years, this will allow a spatial
rebalancing of the urban form and provide for significant development in areas
away from the southern edge of the Warwick/Leamington/Whitnash urban
area.
Apart from relieving some of the development pressure on the south, it also
represents sensible planning practice by creating a more rounded and
balanced urban area, enabling greater accessibility, especially for the town
centres, and should enable more effective transport planning through
maintaining a more compact urban form with Leamington and Warwick Town
Centres as two central hubs.
Past development allocations had resulted in Leamington Town Centre
becoming increasingly less "central" to the urban area as development
extended to the south. The proposed strategy ends this practice and is
therefore welcome.
PO4 - Distribution of Sites for Housing
At this Preferred Option stage, we do not have detailed proposals for any of
the sites covering, for example, access arrangements, amounts of
employment land, types and forms of community facilities to be provided, and
such like.
Therefore, we wholly reserve our position in respect of objection to, or support
for, any of the sites and we will make strong representations in this respect at
the Draft Local Plan stage.
However, we have a number of concerns in respect of several of the sites. We
draw these to the District Council's attention at this stage so they can be
addressed in formulating detailed proposals.
3
Education Provision
A general comment we wish to make is that it is critical that detailed
consideration is given, up front, to the level and location of future school
provision, both Primary and Secondary.
In Whitnash we have suffered from the lack of provision of a Primary School
at Warwick Gates. The draft Development Brief included a school, but this
was subsequently deleted as the County Council, as LEA, took the view that a
better option was the expansion of the existing three schools in Whitnash. As
this was, in planning terms, "policy neutral", the District Council amended the
Development Brief accordingly and deleted the school site.
This has led to problems for the residents of Warwick Gates and we would
seek to ensure that such a situation does not arise again through this Local
Plan process.
Our comments on education more specifically related to individual sites as
follows.
Sites 2 and 3 - if these sites progress, these should be seen as incorporating
a possible location for a Secondary School.
Site 6 (Whitnash East) - we understand that access could only be achieved
through the Campion School site. We are concerned that the school should
remain viable and continue to be located where it is.
Site 10 (Warwick Gates Employment Land) - consideration should be given to
siting a Secondary School on this land, given its advantages in terms of
accessibility from across the south of the urban area. The opportunity should
also be taken to explore the siting of a Primary School on the site, to meet the
needs both of existing Warwick Gates residents and also the needs arising
from any additional housing, on the site itself or in the vicinity.
Site 2 - Myton Garden Suburb
Our concern in respect of this proposed allocation is that its development will
result in the coalescence of the three components of the urban area, Warwick,
Leamington and Whitnash. We consider that this will result in a loss of
individual identity for the three towns.
Site 3 - South of Gallows Hill
We raise the following concerns in relation to this site:
* The land is extremely prominent in the landscape and will be highly
visible when entering the urban area from the south
* The site does not represent a logical extension of the current urban
form. It is in no way "rounding off" and would constitute a "peninsula" of
development extending to the south
4
* It would have a negative impact upon the setting of Warwick Castle
Park
Site 6 - Whitnash East
We raise the following concerns in respect of this site:
* We are not convinced that access to the site is feasible. Our
understanding is that the South Sydenham development constituted the
maximum number of dwellings that could be accommodated off a cul-de-sac.
Given that access to the site via Church Lane or Fieldgate Lane is clearly not
feasible, access would have to be achieved via land within Campion School.
As this would involve relocation of school buildings, we are sceptical that the
number of houses proposed could fund the necessary works required to
achieve this solution
* Given the above issue, and our earlier comments on the wider subject
of education provision, we do not wish to see the future location of Campion
School prejudiced by this development
* There are, in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site, substantial
areas of both historical and nature conservation interest. Any development
must not have an adverse impact on any of these cultural, historic and natural
heritage resources
* In the event that the site is developed, we would wish to ensure that
sufficient community facilities are provided within the development and also
that adequate footpath and cycleway links are provided between the
development and the existing community of Whitnash
Site 10 - Warwick Gates Employment Land
We raise the following concerns in respect of this site:
* The site appears to be proposed for development at an extremely low
density. We make this observation elsewhere in respect of other proposed
allocations. We are concerned that, to accommodate the projected housing
need, land is allocated at appropriately high density, thus reducing the overall
level of new land that is needed
* This site is currently a high quality employment land allocation and we
understand that a reason the land has not been developed is landowner
aspirations, rather than demand for such a site. It is essential that the Local
Plan provides a balanced supply of employment land to meet all sectors of
demand, if economic growth and prosperity is to be fostered. There is
currently no other site in the urban area that offers this amount of land area in
such an accessible location. We are therefore concerned at its proposed
reallocation from employment to housing
5
Site 11 - Woodside Farm
We raise the following concerns in respect of this site:
* We fail to see how two access points could effectively be achieved to
this site. We do not consider access from Harbury Lane to be feasible due to
the existing road alignment. We doubt whether access could be achieved
from Tachbrook Road due to the proximity of the Ashford Road and Harbury
Lane junctions to the north and south of the site respectively. Construction of
a roundabout at the Tachbrook Road/Harbury lane junction would offer
potential for one access point, but we are concerned about the impact of such
construction on the important oak trees in the vicinity
* We also doubt whether the development could carry the cost of such
highways works. The option of gaining access via Landor Road is utterly
unacceptable due to the road alignment and lack of vehicle capacity.
Furthermore, it appears that physical access could only be gained through
demolition of existing buildings
* In the event that a single access point was sought, we consider that
this has the potential to isolate the housing from the existing community and
also lead to unnecessary and unsustainable vehicle movements
* The site would be highly prominent in the landscape - there is
therefore a concern about visual impact
* The presence of underground High Voltage electricity cables will limit
the site layout
* There is considerable local opposition to the proposed allocation of the
site. It is our duty as a Town Council to inform you of this high level of
opposition
Site 12 - Fieldgate Lane/Golf Lane
The raise the following concerns regarding this site:
* We consider there to be fundamental access problems and have
concerns about the capacity of the Coppice Road/Morris Drive and Whitnash
Road/Golf Lane junctions to accommodate the additional movements
generated by the development, especially at peak periods
* We are concerned that, at a proposed level of 90 dwellings, the site
density is too high. This would be a prestigious site and the proposed density
should reflect this. Our argument does not run contrary to that made in
respect of other sites, where we consider the density to be too low, as
provision needs to be made at varying densities to reflect different sectors of
the housing market. This includes provision of sheltered housing and singlestorey
dwellings on appropriate sites. This may or may not be the case at
6
Fieldgate Lane, but should certainly be considered across the portfolio of
proposed housing allocations
PO5 - Affordable Housing
We support the provision of appropriate levels of affordable housing but would
seek this to be distributed across all sites to ensure the development of
socially balanced communities
PO6 - Mixed Communities and a Wide Choice of Homes
We support the Preferred Option PO6.
PO7 - Gypsies and Travellers
Given that Whitnash has experienced particular problems through unlawful
traveller encampments in recent years, we support the principle of the
Preferred Option of proper site provision
PO8 - Economy
We support the principles of PO8. However, we reiterate our concern that
appropriate levels of employment land should be provided, in the right places,
and this should constitute a balanced portfolio of sites to meet as wide a
variety of needs and demands as possible
PO9 - Retailing and Town Centres
We support the principles set out in PO9
PO10 - Built Environment
We support the principles set out in PO10
PO11 - Historic Environment
We support the principles set out in PO11
PO12 - Climate Change
We support the principles set out in PO12
We will seek to ensure that any future development in Whitnash seeks to
reduce the Town's overall carbon footprint through the application of
sustainable development and design principles
PO13 - Inclusive, Safe and Healthy Communities
We support the principles set out in PO13
7
PO14 - Transport
We support the principles set out in PO14 with the exception of the section
relating to High Speed 2.
Whitnash Town Council neither objects to nor supports HS2
We urge the District Council to ensure that the final Infrastructure Delivery
Plan takes full account of public transport needs and the principles and
policies set out in Warwickshire County Council's Local Transport Plan 3
PO15 - Green Infrastructure
We support the principles set out in PO15
PO16 - Green Belt
We support the limited release of Green Belt sites as set out in PO16 as this
will create a more balanced and sustainable urban area and urban form
PO17 - Culture and Tourism
We support the principles set out in PO17
PO18 - Flooding and Water
We support the principles set out in PO18

Whitnash Town Council respond to each of the Preferred Options in turn, and
make comments in respect of the Vision and Objectives.
Vision and Objectives
We broadly support the Vision and Objectives for the Local Plan, but reserve
our position on the level of housing supply, for the reasons set out in our
response to PO1 below.
PO1 - Level of Growth
In principle we agree that sufficient housing should be provided across the
District to meet future housing needs. However, we are unable to comment on
the proposed level of an average provision on 555 per annum on allocated
sites, plus windfalls, as housing numbers are an immensely technical issue.
Notwithstanding this, we are very concerned that Warwick District and
Coventry City Councils are failing to exercise their statutory Duty to Cooperate
under the Localism Act 2011 by not addressing the important matter
of cross-boundary housing need.
We are concerned that, in its current state, the proposed strategy will be
found to be "unsound" by the Inspector at the eventual Examination. This
could well result in additional housing provision having to be made, and this
would have clear implications for non-Green Belt areas, such as those
surrounding Whitnash.
We therefore urge the District Council to effectively exercise the Duty to Cooperate
with Coventry in respect of cross-boundary housing provision at this
WHITNASH TOWN COUNCIL
Franklin Road Town Clerk
Whitnash Mrs J A Mason
Warwickshire Email: jenny.mason@whitnashtowncouncil.gov.uk
CV31 2JH
Telephone and Fax: 01926 470394
2
stage, therefore preventing the danger of the Local Plan being found
"unsound" in the future and the Council having to consequently revise its
strategy and land allocations.
PO2 - Community Infrastructure Levy
We fully support the District Council in seeking to introduce a CIL scheme as
the Town Council considers it vital that full and appropriate infrastructure
provision is made, in advance of development wherever possible. It is
essential, however, that the funds raised are used to develop infrastructure in
the areas where the impacts will be felt, irrespective of Town and Parish
administrative boundaries.
We look forward to seeing and commenting upon the Infrastructure Delivery
Plan in due course.
PO3 - Broad Location of Growth
We support the strategy to make Green Belt releases to the north of
Leamington. For the first time in many years, this will allow a spatial
rebalancing of the urban form and provide for significant development in areas
away from the southern edge of the Warwick/Leamington/Whitnash urban
area.
Apart from relieving some of the development pressure on the south, it also
represents sensible planning practice by creating a more rounded and
balanced urban area, enabling greater accessibility, especially for the town
centres, and should enable more effective transport planning through
maintaining a more compact urban form with Leamington and Warwick Town
Centres as two central hubs.
Past development allocations had resulted in Leamington Town Centre
becoming increasingly less "central" to the urban area as development
extended to the south. The proposed strategy ends this practice and is
therefore welcome.
PO4 - Distribution of Sites for Housing
At this Preferred Option stage, we do not have detailed proposals for any of
the sites covering, for example, access arrangements, amounts of
employment land, types and forms of community facilities to be provided, and
such like.
Therefore, we wholly reserve our position in respect of objection to, or support
for, any of the sites and we will make strong representations in this respect at
the Draft Local Plan stage.
However, we have a number of concerns in respect of several of the sites. We
draw these to the District Council's attention at this stage so they can be
addressed in formulating detailed proposals.
3
Education Provision
A general comment we wish to make is that it is critical that detailed
consideration is given, up front, to the level and location of future school
provision, both Primary and Secondary.
In Whitnash we have suffered from the lack of provision of a Primary School
at Warwick Gates. The draft Development Brief included a school, but this
was subsequently deleted as the County Council, as LEA, took the view that a
better option was the expansion of the existing three schools in Whitnash. As
this was, in planning terms, "policy neutral", the District Council amended the
Development Brief accordingly and deleted the school site.
This has led to problems for the residents of Warwick Gates and we would
seek to ensure that such a situation does not arise again through this Local
Plan process.
Our comments on education more specifically related to individual sites as
follows.
Sites 2 and 3 - if these sites progress, these should be seen as incorporating
a possible location for a Secondary School.
Site 6 (Whitnash East) - we understand that access could only be achieved
through the Campion School site. We are concerned that the school should
remain viable and continue to be located where it is.
Site 10 (Warwick Gates Employment Land) - consideration should be given to
siting a Secondary School on this land, given its advantages in terms of
accessibility from across the south of the urban area. The opportunity should
also be taken to explore the siting of a Primary School on the site, to meet the
needs both of existing Warwick Gates residents and also the needs arising
from any additional housing, on the site itself or in the vicinity.
Site 2 - Myton Garden Suburb
Our concern in respect of this proposed allocation is that its development will
result in the coalescence of the three components of the urban area, Warwick,
Leamington and Whitnash. We consider that this will result in a loss of
individual identity for the three towns.
Site 3 - South of Gallows Hill
We raise the following concerns in relation to this site:
* The land is extremely prominent in the landscape and will be highly
visible when entering the urban area from the south
* The site does not represent a logical extension of the current urban
form. It is in no way "rounding off" and would constitute a "peninsula" of
development extending to the south
4
* It would have a negative impact upon the setting of Warwick Castle
Park
Site 6 - Whitnash East
We raise the following concerns in respect of this site:
* We are not convinced that access to the site is feasible. Our
understanding is that the South Sydenham development constituted the
maximum number of dwellings that could be accommodated off a cul-de-sac.
Given that access to the site via Church Lane or Fieldgate Lane is clearly not
feasible, access would have to be achieved via land within Campion School.
As this would involve relocation of school buildings, we are sceptical that the
number of houses proposed could fund the necessary works required to
achieve this solution
* Given the above issue, and our earlier comments on the wider subject
of education provision, we do not wish to see the future location of Campion
School prejudiced by this development
* There are, in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site, substantial
areas of both historical and nature conservation interest. Any development
must not have an adverse impact on any of these cultural, historic and natural
heritage resources
* In the event that the site is developed, we would wish to ensure that
sufficient community facilities are provided within the development and also
that adequate footpath and cycleway links are provided between the
development and the existing community of Whitnash
Site 10 - Warwick Gates Employment Land
We raise the following concerns in respect of this site:
* The site appears to be proposed for development at an extremely low
density. We make this observation elsewhere in respect of other proposed
allocations. We are concerned that, to accommodate the projected housing
need, land is allocated at appropriately high density, thus reducing the overall
level of new land that is needed
* This site is currently a high quality employment land allocation and we
understand that a reason the land has not been developed is landowner
aspirations, rather than demand for such a site. It is essential that the Local
Plan provides a balanced supply of employment land to meet all sectors of
demand, if economic growth and prosperity is to be fostered. There is
currently no other site in the urban area that offers this amount of land area in
such an accessible location. We are therefore concerned at its proposed
reallocation from employment to housing
5
Site 11 - Woodside Farm
We raise the following concerns in respect of this site:
* We fail to see how two access points could effectively be achieved to
this site. We do not consider access from Harbury Lane to be feasible due to
the existing road alignment. We doubt whether access could be achieved
from Tachbrook Road due to the proximity of the Ashford Road and Harbury
Lane junctions to the north and south of the site respectively. Construction of
a roundabout at the Tachbrook Road/Harbury lane junction would offer
potential for one access point, but we are concerned about the impact of such
construction on the important oak trees in the vicinity
* We also doubt whether the development could carry the cost of such
highways works. The option of gaining access via Landor Road is utterly
unacceptable due to the road alignment and lack of vehicle capacity.
Furthermore, it appears that physical access could only be gained through
demolition of existing buildings
* In the event that a single access point was sought, we consider that
this has the potential to isolate the housing from the existing community and
also lead to unnecessary and unsustainable vehicle movements
* The site would be highly prominent in the landscape - there is
therefore a concern about visual impact
* The presence of underground High Voltage electricity cables will limit
the site layout
* There is considerable local opposition to the proposed allocation of the
site. It is our duty as a Town Council to inform you of this high level of
opposition
Site 12 - Fieldgate Lane/Golf Lane
The raise the following concerns regarding this site:
* We consider there to be fundamental access problems and have
concerns about the capacity of the Coppice Road/Morris Drive and Whitnash
Road/Golf Lane junctions to accommodate the additional movements
generated by the development, especially at peak periods
* We are concerned that, at a proposed level of 90 dwellings, the site
density is too high. This would be a prestigious site and the proposed density
should reflect this. Our argument does not run contrary to that made in
respect of other sites, where we consider the density to be too low, as
provision needs to be made at varying densities to reflect different sectors of
the housing market. This includes provision of sheltered housing and singlestorey
dwellings on appropriate sites. This may or may not be the case at
6
Fieldgate Lane, but should certainly be considered across the portfolio of
proposed housing allocations
PO5 - Affordable Housing
We support the provision of appropriate levels of affordable housing but would
seek this to be distributed across all sites to ensure the development of
socially balanced communities
PO6 - Mixed Communities and a Wide Choice of Homes
We support the Preferred Option PO6.
PO7 - Gypsies and Travellers
Given that Whitnash has experienced particular problems through unlawful
traveller encampments in recent years, we support the principle of the
Preferred Option of proper site provision
PO8 - Economy
We support the principles of PO8. However, we reiterate our concern that
appropriate levels of employment land should be provided, in the right places,
and this should constitute a balanced portfolio of sites to meet as wide a
variety of needs and demands as possible
PO9 - Retailing and Town Centres
We support the principles set out in PO9
PO10 - Built Environment
We support the principles set out in PO10
PO11 - Historic Environment
We support the principles set out in PO11
PO12 - Climate Change
We support the principles set out in PO12
We will seek to ensure that any future development in Whitnash seeks to
reduce the Town's overall carbon footprint through the application of
sustainable development and design principles
PO13 - Inclusive, Safe and Healthy Communities
We support the principles set out in PO13
7
PO14 - Transport
We support the principles set out in PO14 with the exception of the section
relating to High Speed 2.
Whitnash Town Council neither objects to nor supports HS2
We urge the District Council to ensure that the final Infrastructure Delivery
Plan takes full account of public transport needs and the principles and
policies set out in Warwickshire County Council's Local Transport Plan 3
PO15 - Green Infrastructure
We support the principles set out in PO15
PO16 - Green Belt
We support the limited release of Green Belt sites as set out in PO16 as this
will create a more balanced and sustainable urban area and urban form
PO17 - Culture and Tourism
We support the principles set out in PO17
PO18 - Flooding and Water
We support the principles set out in PO18

See Attachment

See attached