Location of employment land

Showing comments and forms 1 to 14 of 14

Support

Preferred Options

Representation ID: 46713

Received: 23/07/2012

Respondent: Joanna Illingworth

Representation Summary:

I support the statement that "The Council is supportive in principle but considers that further work is needed to justify the identification of this site"

I understand that the majority of people employed at the Gateway site will be existing residents of Coventry or Warwick District. If this is the case there will no need to provide extra housing for them in Warwick district.

Full text:

I support the statement that "The Council is supportive in principle but considers that further work is needed to justify the identification of this site"

I understand that the majority of people employed at the Gateway site will be existing residents of Coventry or Warwick District. If this is the case there will no need to provide extra housing for them in Warwick district.

Object

Preferred Options

Representation ID: 46733

Received: 23/07/2012

Respondent: Mr Peter Staton

Representation Summary:

Para 8.30.
This type of activity is not appropriate to the Thickthorn area which, although adjacent to the A46 as no direct access to it! Result, heavy commercial vehicles would use the existing residential roads.

Full text:

Para 8.30.
This type of activity is not appropriate to the Thickthorn area which, although adjacent to the A46 as no direct access to it! Result, heavy commercial vehicles would use the existing residential roads.

Object

Preferred Options

Representation ID: 47487

Received: 03/08/2012

Respondent: The Europa Way Consortium and Warwickshire County Council (Physical Assets-Resources)

Agent: AMEC

Representation Summary:

With reference to Para 8.29, we strongly disagree with the Council's stated rationale for proposing that the committed employment land at Warwick Gates is developed for housing and that an alternative proportion of employment land is met on one or more of the strategic site allocation south of Warwick. We have not seen any evidence to suggest that this proposed change is either necessary or would be beneficial (please see separate comments under Policy PO4.

Full text:

The Council states that the Local Plan "must" provide employment opportunities in locations to meet the needs of new housing, and that "...the selection of sites is guided by those identified for housing" (para 8.27). While it remains a national policy to seek to reduce the need to travel (by means other than the private car) and that achieving a balance between employment and housing growth is an important element in planning for a sustainable pattern of development, the Council's stated approach to determine the most appropriate location for new employment land within the District appears neither robust nor rigorous. By proposing that strategic sites allocated for housing should also include an allocation of employment land, we believe the Council has failed to recognise that not all proposed strategic site allocations are the same.

Land north of Gallows Hills/west of Europa Way is surrounded by existing employment opportunities, and within walking distance of major committed employment sites (Warwick Gates and the Leamington Gateway/former Ford Foundry site). Furthermore, the District has an existing healthy supply of employment sites which, given existing levels of demand, is unlikely to be taken up in Phase 1 of the Plan period nor possibly in Phase 2 if the Coventry and Warwickshire Gateway scheme comes forward.

The Europa Way Consortium and Warwickshire County Council are, in line with Policy PO4, committed to bring forward land north of Gallows Hills/west of Europa Way in Phases 1 and 2, and consider that it is preferable to bring forward much needed housing on this site rather than have part of the site sat undeveloped awaiting take-up by employment development market.

Object

Preferred Options

Representation ID: 48773

Received: 06/07/2012

Respondent: Peter and Philippa Wilson

Number of people: 2

Representation Summary:

I object to proposing more employment land to the North of Leamington as this would be on precious Green Belt areas.

Full text:

Document scanned

Attachments:

Object

Preferred Options

Representation ID: 49050

Received: 18/07/2012

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Cutler

Representation Summary:

Object to the words 'committed to the identification of a site of regional importance' being used in paragraph 8.33 of the plan as this does not align with the stated ambitions of the Coventry and Warwickshire LEP (strategy documents). There is a conflict of interest in having this statement in the plan, as a board member of the LEP is also the landowner for land within the project and the developer behind the project.

Full text:

We are writing to make comment and respond regarding the New Local Plan and the related consultation process.
We have attempted to use the on-line response process and registered, but this failed.

Below are comments and input specifically related to sections 8.33 and 8.34 of the draft New Local Plan.


Existing Sections of Draft Local Plan

8.33. Coventry Gateway - The Coventry and Warwickshire LEP is committed to the identification of a site of regional importance for employment to serve the needs of the Coventry and Warwickshire sub region and have indicated that land at Coventry and Warwickshire Gateway (see Map 3) could be a suitable site. It has the potential to provide in the region of 14,000 jobs as well as facilitate major improvements to the transport network. The Council is supportive in principle but considers that further work is needed to justify the identification of this site:

* To demonstrate that there are not any other preferable and suitable sites
within the sub-region,
* To understand the local impacts of a major development at the Gateway
in relation to housing and employment need and the District's transport
infrastructure
* To explore the case for releasing land in the green belt

1) The Coventry and Warwickshire LEP is committed to the identification of a site of regional importance
The key ambitions of the LEP are clearly stated in section 8.18 of the draft local plan. These do not include the identification of 'a site of regional importance'.
The words 'committed to the identification of a site of regional importance' should be removed as this does not align with the key ambitions stated in section 8.18, this is not stated in the vision of the LEP and is not stated in the strategies of the LEP, which were only updated in March 2012. The LEP strategies can be found at http://www.cwlep.com/cwlep-strategy

There is a clear conflict of interest in having this statement within the Local Plan, as a board member of the LEP (Sir Peter Rigby) is also the land owner for land within project and has also formed a joint venture between 'Rigby Family Holdings Ltd' and 'Roxhill Developments', which is the developer behind this proposal. This 50/50 joint venture being Coventry & Warwickshire Development Partnership. There is a material interest referring to the LEP within the Local Plan

This statement should also not rule out or eliminate the use of multiple or existing sites.

2) It has the potential to provide in the region of 14,000 jobs
This is inaccurate and misleading, specifically in relation to planning within Warwick District Council. Part of this proposal and 4,000 of the potential jobs are within the Coventry City Council boundary, it already has planning permission and is already being developed. This is currently named 'Whitley Business Park.
The WDC Local Plan should specially refer to potential jobs related to development within WDC boundary only.

3) facilitate major improvements to the transport network.
This is inaccurate and misleading as the Highways Agency has already identified and scheduled the major road improvements around Tollbar Island (A45/A46) and has committed to proceed in 2013. Commencement of the Highway Agencies improvements is not conditional to the Coventry Gateway proposal.
This proposal will NOT facilitate any major improvements to the road network, but will only add more traffic at these already congested points.
There is no evidence or rational to support this statement, thus it should be removed from paragraph 8.33.

4) The Council is supportive in principle but considers that further work is needed to justify the identification of this site
This sentence should be modified to include 'or use of multiple sites'
Additionally, rather than just supporting in principle, the council should also state its preference which should include the use of existing brownfield sites within the sub-region or other developed land before using green belt land.
This should be modified to state 'The Council is supportive in principle, but its preferred options remain the use of existing brownfield sites and other already approved or developed sites within the sub-region. Further work is required to justify the identification of a suitable sites or use of multiple sites'

5) To demonstrate that there are not any other preferable and suitable sites within the sub-region,
The word 'preferable' should be removed from this bullet and this is subjective, not quantifiable and does not state to whom it must be preferable.
This bullet point should also be extended to
a) Include a review of all existing developed land within the sub-region, with the sub-region noted as Warwickshire County Council & West Midlands
b) Include usage of multiple sites, existing developed land, sites which are already approved for development and land already developed under permitted development rights (i.e. Land within the Coventry Airport boundary itself)
As this proposal is for 3 phases and 1 part of this is already approved and within Coventry City Council's boundary, suitable alternatives within the sub-region should be considered by phase only.

6) To understand the local impacts of a major development at the Gateway in relation to housing and employment need and the District's transport infrastructure
This bullet totally fails to address the impacts to the environment or wildlife.

7) To explore the case for releasing land in the green belt
This should be modified to state 'To explore and justify the case for releasing land within the green belt when existing brownfield and approved sites for development within the sub-region remain under-utilized and unoccupied'.

8) Additional bullets that should be added are:

* To justify the potential job opportunities, how many will be transferred from existing employment areas and assess the impact on the area's/developments from which the jobs will transfer.

* Explore the potential to utilize the land within the existing airport boundary for this development, as this is already developed under permitted development rights and would prevent further encroachment onto green belt land that has not been developed.


8.34. The Council is working with partners on the CWLEP and neighbouring local authorities to undertake this research.

Please clarify which neighbouring local authorities are involved in undertaking this research?
Rugby Borough Council should be a key partner in this research, as they have 2 sites (Ansty Business Park & the Peugeot Ryton site) already approved as a Technology Park and a Logistics Park (with existing road infrastructure) which would be impacted by this proposal.

Again, there is a conflict of Interest in this statement and the CWLEP cannot be deemed independent in any research or evaluation (see section 1 above).
Any research should be conducted by an independent 3rd party without material interest in the proposal.



Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and the points outlined.

Please return correspondence noting that you have received this letter and will consider for inclusion into the final Local Plan.

Object

Preferred Options

Representation ID: 49055

Received: 18/07/2012

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Cutler

Representation Summary:

Object to wording that the Coventry Gateway has potential to provide in the region of 14,000 jobs, as part of this proposal and 4,000 of the potential jobs are within the Coventry City Council boundary (Whitley Business Park), which already has planning permission and is already being developed. The WDC Local Plan should specifically refer to potential jobs related to development within the WDC boundary only.

Full text:

We are writing to make comment and respond regarding the New Local Plan and the related consultation process.
We have attempted to use the on-line response process and registered, but this failed.

Below are comments and input specifically related to sections 8.33 and 8.34 of the draft New Local Plan.


Existing Sections of Draft Local Plan

8.33. Coventry Gateway - The Coventry and Warwickshire LEP is committed to the identification of a site of regional importance for employment to serve the needs of the Coventry and Warwickshire sub region and have indicated that land at Coventry and Warwickshire Gateway (see Map 3) could be a suitable site. It has the potential to provide in the region of 14,000 jobs as well as facilitate major improvements to the transport network. The Council is supportive in principle but considers that further work is needed to justify the identification of this site:

* To demonstrate that there are not any other preferable and suitable sites
within the sub-region,
* To understand the local impacts of a major development at the Gateway
in relation to housing and employment need and the District's transport
infrastructure
* To explore the case for releasing land in the green belt

1) The Coventry and Warwickshire LEP is committed to the identification of a site of regional importance
The key ambitions of the LEP are clearly stated in section 8.18 of the draft local plan. These do not include the identification of 'a site of regional importance'.
The words 'committed to the identification of a site of regional importance' should be removed as this does not align with the key ambitions stated in section 8.18, this is not stated in the vision of the LEP and is not stated in the strategies of the LEP, which were only updated in March 2012. The LEP strategies can be found at http://www.cwlep.com/cwlep-strategy

There is a clear conflict of interest in having this statement within the Local Plan, as a board member of the LEP (Sir Peter Rigby) is also the land owner for land within project and has also formed a joint venture between 'Rigby Family Holdings Ltd' and 'Roxhill Developments', which is the developer behind this proposal. This 50/50 joint venture being Coventry & Warwickshire Development Partnership. There is a material interest referring to the LEP within the Local Plan

This statement should also not rule out or eliminate the use of multiple or existing sites.

2) It has the potential to provide in the region of 14,000 jobs
This is inaccurate and misleading, specifically in relation to planning within Warwick District Council. Part of this proposal and 4,000 of the potential jobs are within the Coventry City Council boundary, it already has planning permission and is already being developed. This is currently named 'Whitley Business Park.
The WDC Local Plan should specially refer to potential jobs related to development within WDC boundary only.

3) facilitate major improvements to the transport network.
This is inaccurate and misleading as the Highways Agency has already identified and scheduled the major road improvements around Tollbar Island (A45/A46) and has committed to proceed in 2013. Commencement of the Highway Agencies improvements is not conditional to the Coventry Gateway proposal.
This proposal will NOT facilitate any major improvements to the road network, but will only add more traffic at these already congested points.
There is no evidence or rational to support this statement, thus it should be removed from paragraph 8.33.

4) The Council is supportive in principle but considers that further work is needed to justify the identification of this site
This sentence should be modified to include 'or use of multiple sites'
Additionally, rather than just supporting in principle, the council should also state its preference which should include the use of existing brownfield sites within the sub-region or other developed land before using green belt land.
This should be modified to state 'The Council is supportive in principle, but its preferred options remain the use of existing brownfield sites and other already approved or developed sites within the sub-region. Further work is required to justify the identification of a suitable sites or use of multiple sites'

5) To demonstrate that there are not any other preferable and suitable sites within the sub-region,
The word 'preferable' should be removed from this bullet and this is subjective, not quantifiable and does not state to whom it must be preferable.
This bullet point should also be extended to
a) Include a review of all existing developed land within the sub-region, with the sub-region noted as Warwickshire County Council & West Midlands
b) Include usage of multiple sites, existing developed land, sites which are already approved for development and land already developed under permitted development rights (i.e. Land within the Coventry Airport boundary itself)
As this proposal is for 3 phases and 1 part of this is already approved and within Coventry City Council's boundary, suitable alternatives within the sub-region should be considered by phase only.

6) To understand the local impacts of a major development at the Gateway in relation to housing and employment need and the District's transport infrastructure
This bullet totally fails to address the impacts to the environment or wildlife.

7) To explore the case for releasing land in the green belt
This should be modified to state 'To explore and justify the case for releasing land within the green belt when existing brownfield and approved sites for development within the sub-region remain under-utilized and unoccupied'.

8) Additional bullets that should be added are:

* To justify the potential job opportunities, how many will be transferred from existing employment areas and assess the impact on the area's/developments from which the jobs will transfer.

* Explore the potential to utilize the land within the existing airport boundary for this development, as this is already developed under permitted development rights and would prevent further encroachment onto green belt land that has not been developed.


8.34. The Council is working with partners on the CWLEP and neighbouring local authorities to undertake this research.

Please clarify which neighbouring local authorities are involved in undertaking this research?
Rugby Borough Council should be a key partner in this research, as they have 2 sites (Ansty Business Park & the Peugeot Ryton site) already approved as a Technology Park and a Logistics Park (with existing road infrastructure) which would be impacted by this proposal.

Again, there is a conflict of Interest in this statement and the CWLEP cannot be deemed independent in any research or evaluation (see section 1 above).
Any research should be conducted by an independent 3rd party without material interest in the proposal.



Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and the points outlined.

Please return correspondence noting that you have received this letter and will consider for inclusion into the final Local Plan.

Object

Preferred Options

Representation ID: 49058

Received: 18/07/2012

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Cutler

Representation Summary:

Object to the phrase 'facilitate major improvements to the transport network' within paragraph 8.33, as the Highways Agency has already identified and scheduled the major road improvements around Tollbar Island (A45/A46) and has committed to proceed in 2013. Commencement of these works is not conditional to the Coventry Gateway proposal. This proposal will not facilitate any major improvements to the road network, but will only add more traffic at these already congested points.

Full text:

We are writing to make comment and respond regarding the New Local Plan and the related consultation process.
We have attempted to use the on-line response process and registered, but this failed.

Below are comments and input specifically related to sections 8.33 and 8.34 of the draft New Local Plan.


Existing Sections of Draft Local Plan

8.33. Coventry Gateway - The Coventry and Warwickshire LEP is committed to the identification of a site of regional importance for employment to serve the needs of the Coventry and Warwickshire sub region and have indicated that land at Coventry and Warwickshire Gateway (see Map 3) could be a suitable site. It has the potential to provide in the region of 14,000 jobs as well as facilitate major improvements to the transport network. The Council is supportive in principle but considers that further work is needed to justify the identification of this site:

* To demonstrate that there are not any other preferable and suitable sites
within the sub-region,
* To understand the local impacts of a major development at the Gateway
in relation to housing and employment need and the District's transport
infrastructure
* To explore the case for releasing land in the green belt

1) The Coventry and Warwickshire LEP is committed to the identification of a site of regional importance
The key ambitions of the LEP are clearly stated in section 8.18 of the draft local plan. These do not include the identification of 'a site of regional importance'.
The words 'committed to the identification of a site of regional importance' should be removed as this does not align with the key ambitions stated in section 8.18, this is not stated in the vision of the LEP and is not stated in the strategies of the LEP, which were only updated in March 2012. The LEP strategies can be found at http://www.cwlep.com/cwlep-strategy

There is a clear conflict of interest in having this statement within the Local Plan, as a board member of the LEP (Sir Peter Rigby) is also the land owner for land within project and has also formed a joint venture between 'Rigby Family Holdings Ltd' and 'Roxhill Developments', which is the developer behind this proposal. This 50/50 joint venture being Coventry & Warwickshire Development Partnership. There is a material interest referring to the LEP within the Local Plan

This statement should also not rule out or eliminate the use of multiple or existing sites.

2) It has the potential to provide in the region of 14,000 jobs
This is inaccurate and misleading, specifically in relation to planning within Warwick District Council. Part of this proposal and 4,000 of the potential jobs are within the Coventry City Council boundary, it already has planning permission and is already being developed. This is currently named 'Whitley Business Park.
The WDC Local Plan should specially refer to potential jobs related to development within WDC boundary only.

3) facilitate major improvements to the transport network.
This is inaccurate and misleading as the Highways Agency has already identified and scheduled the major road improvements around Tollbar Island (A45/A46) and has committed to proceed in 2013. Commencement of the Highway Agencies improvements is not conditional to the Coventry Gateway proposal.
This proposal will NOT facilitate any major improvements to the road network, but will only add more traffic at these already congested points.
There is no evidence or rational to support this statement, thus it should be removed from paragraph 8.33.

4) The Council is supportive in principle but considers that further work is needed to justify the identification of this site
This sentence should be modified to include 'or use of multiple sites'
Additionally, rather than just supporting in principle, the council should also state its preference which should include the use of existing brownfield sites within the sub-region or other developed land before using green belt land.
This should be modified to state 'The Council is supportive in principle, but its preferred options remain the use of existing brownfield sites and other already approved or developed sites within the sub-region. Further work is required to justify the identification of a suitable sites or use of multiple sites'

5) To demonstrate that there are not any other preferable and suitable sites within the sub-region,
The word 'preferable' should be removed from this bullet and this is subjective, not quantifiable and does not state to whom it must be preferable.
This bullet point should also be extended to
a) Include a review of all existing developed land within the sub-region, with the sub-region noted as Warwickshire County Council & West Midlands
b) Include usage of multiple sites, existing developed land, sites which are already approved for development and land already developed under permitted development rights (i.e. Land within the Coventry Airport boundary itself)
As this proposal is for 3 phases and 1 part of this is already approved and within Coventry City Council's boundary, suitable alternatives within the sub-region should be considered by phase only.

6) To understand the local impacts of a major development at the Gateway in relation to housing and employment need and the District's transport infrastructure
This bullet totally fails to address the impacts to the environment or wildlife.

7) To explore the case for releasing land in the green belt
This should be modified to state 'To explore and justify the case for releasing land within the green belt when existing brownfield and approved sites for development within the sub-region remain under-utilized and unoccupied'.

8) Additional bullets that should be added are:

* To justify the potential job opportunities, how many will be transferred from existing employment areas and assess the impact on the area's/developments from which the jobs will transfer.

* Explore the potential to utilize the land within the existing airport boundary for this development, as this is already developed under permitted development rights and would prevent further encroachment onto green belt land that has not been developed.


8.34. The Council is working with partners on the CWLEP and neighbouring local authorities to undertake this research.

Please clarify which neighbouring local authorities are involved in undertaking this research?
Rugby Borough Council should be a key partner in this research, as they have 2 sites (Ansty Business Park & the Peugeot Ryton site) already approved as a Technology Park and a Logistics Park (with existing road infrastructure) which would be impacted by this proposal.

Again, there is a conflict of Interest in this statement and the CWLEP cannot be deemed independent in any research or evaluation (see section 1 above).
Any research should be conducted by an independent 3rd party without material interest in the proposal.



Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and the points outlined.

Please return correspondence noting that you have received this letter and will consider for inclusion into the final Local Plan.

Object

Preferred Options

Representation ID: 49059

Received: 18/07/2012

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Cutler

Representation Summary:

Object to the wording that 'The Council is supportive in principle but considers that further work is needed to justify the identification of this site' in paragraph 8.33. This sentence should be modified to include 'or use of multiple sites'
Additionally, rather than just supporting in principle, the council should also state its preference which should include the use of existing brownfield sites within the sub-region or other developed land before using green belt land.

Full text:

We are writing to make comment and respond regarding the New Local Plan and the related consultation process.
We have attempted to use the on-line response process and registered, but this failed.

Below are comments and input specifically related to sections 8.33 and 8.34 of the draft New Local Plan.


Existing Sections of Draft Local Plan

8.33. Coventry Gateway - The Coventry and Warwickshire LEP is committed to the identification of a site of regional importance for employment to serve the needs of the Coventry and Warwickshire sub region and have indicated that land at Coventry and Warwickshire Gateway (see Map 3) could be a suitable site. It has the potential to provide in the region of 14,000 jobs as well as facilitate major improvements to the transport network. The Council is supportive in principle but considers that further work is needed to justify the identification of this site:

* To demonstrate that there are not any other preferable and suitable sites
within the sub-region,
* To understand the local impacts of a major development at the Gateway
in relation to housing and employment need and the District's transport
infrastructure
* To explore the case for releasing land in the green belt

1) The Coventry and Warwickshire LEP is committed to the identification of a site of regional importance
The key ambitions of the LEP are clearly stated in section 8.18 of the draft local plan. These do not include the identification of 'a site of regional importance'.
The words 'committed to the identification of a site of regional importance' should be removed as this does not align with the key ambitions stated in section 8.18, this is not stated in the vision of the LEP and is not stated in the strategies of the LEP, which were only updated in March 2012. The LEP strategies can be found at http://www.cwlep.com/cwlep-strategy

There is a clear conflict of interest in having this statement within the Local Plan, as a board member of the LEP (Sir Peter Rigby) is also the land owner for land within project and has also formed a joint venture between 'Rigby Family Holdings Ltd' and 'Roxhill Developments', which is the developer behind this proposal. This 50/50 joint venture being Coventry & Warwickshire Development Partnership. There is a material interest referring to the LEP within the Local Plan

This statement should also not rule out or eliminate the use of multiple or existing sites.

2) It has the potential to provide in the region of 14,000 jobs
This is inaccurate and misleading, specifically in relation to planning within Warwick District Council. Part of this proposal and 4,000 of the potential jobs are within the Coventry City Council boundary, it already has planning permission and is already being developed. This is currently named 'Whitley Business Park.
The WDC Local Plan should specially refer to potential jobs related to development within WDC boundary only.

3) facilitate major improvements to the transport network.
This is inaccurate and misleading as the Highways Agency has already identified and scheduled the major road improvements around Tollbar Island (A45/A46) and has committed to proceed in 2013. Commencement of the Highway Agencies improvements is not conditional to the Coventry Gateway proposal.
This proposal will NOT facilitate any major improvements to the road network, but will only add more traffic at these already congested points.
There is no evidence or rational to support this statement, thus it should be removed from paragraph 8.33.

4) The Council is supportive in principle but considers that further work is needed to justify the identification of this site
This sentence should be modified to include 'or use of multiple sites'
Additionally, rather than just supporting in principle, the council should also state its preference which should include the use of existing brownfield sites within the sub-region or other developed land before using green belt land.
This should be modified to state 'The Council is supportive in principle, but its preferred options remain the use of existing brownfield sites and other already approved or developed sites within the sub-region. Further work is required to justify the identification of a suitable sites or use of multiple sites'

5) To demonstrate that there are not any other preferable and suitable sites within the sub-region,
The word 'preferable' should be removed from this bullet and this is subjective, not quantifiable and does not state to whom it must be preferable.
This bullet point should also be extended to
a) Include a review of all existing developed land within the sub-region, with the sub-region noted as Warwickshire County Council & West Midlands
b) Include usage of multiple sites, existing developed land, sites which are already approved for development and land already developed under permitted development rights (i.e. Land within the Coventry Airport boundary itself)
As this proposal is for 3 phases and 1 part of this is already approved and within Coventry City Council's boundary, suitable alternatives within the sub-region should be considered by phase only.

6) To understand the local impacts of a major development at the Gateway in relation to housing and employment need and the District's transport infrastructure
This bullet totally fails to address the impacts to the environment or wildlife.

7) To explore the case for releasing land in the green belt
This should be modified to state 'To explore and justify the case for releasing land within the green belt when existing brownfield and approved sites for development within the sub-region remain under-utilized and unoccupied'.

8) Additional bullets that should be added are:

* To justify the potential job opportunities, how many will be transferred from existing employment areas and assess the impact on the area's/developments from which the jobs will transfer.

* Explore the potential to utilize the land within the existing airport boundary for this development, as this is already developed under permitted development rights and would prevent further encroachment onto green belt land that has not been developed.


8.34. The Council is working with partners on the CWLEP and neighbouring local authorities to undertake this research.

Please clarify which neighbouring local authorities are involved in undertaking this research?
Rugby Borough Council should be a key partner in this research, as they have 2 sites (Ansty Business Park & the Peugeot Ryton site) already approved as a Technology Park and a Logistics Park (with existing road infrastructure) which would be impacted by this proposal.

Again, there is a conflict of Interest in this statement and the CWLEP cannot be deemed independent in any research or evaluation (see section 1 above).
Any research should be conducted by an independent 3rd party without material interest in the proposal.



Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and the points outlined.

Please return correspondence noting that you have received this letter and will consider for inclusion into the final Local Plan.

Object

Preferred Options

Representation ID: 49061

Received: 18/07/2012

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Cutler

Representation Summary:

The word 'preferable' should be removed from the first bullet under paragraph 8.33 as this is subjective. The wording should be extended to include the text detailed under changes to plan. As this proposal is for 3 phases and 1 part of this is already approved and within Coventry City Council's boundary, suitable alternatives within the sub-region should be considered by phase only.

Full text:

We are writing to make comment and respond regarding the New Local Plan and the related consultation process.
We have attempted to use the on-line response process and registered, but this failed.

Below are comments and input specifically related to sections 8.33 and 8.34 of the draft New Local Plan.


Existing Sections of Draft Local Plan

8.33. Coventry Gateway - The Coventry and Warwickshire LEP is committed to the identification of a site of regional importance for employment to serve the needs of the Coventry and Warwickshire sub region and have indicated that land at Coventry and Warwickshire Gateway (see Map 3) could be a suitable site. It has the potential to provide in the region of 14,000 jobs as well as facilitate major improvements to the transport network. The Council is supportive in principle but considers that further work is needed to justify the identification of this site:

* To demonstrate that there are not any other preferable and suitable sites
within the sub-region,
* To understand the local impacts of a major development at the Gateway
in relation to housing and employment need and the District's transport
infrastructure
* To explore the case for releasing land in the green belt

1) The Coventry and Warwickshire LEP is committed to the identification of a site of regional importance
The key ambitions of the LEP are clearly stated in section 8.18 of the draft local plan. These do not include the identification of 'a site of regional importance'.
The words 'committed to the identification of a site of regional importance' should be removed as this does not align with the key ambitions stated in section 8.18, this is not stated in the vision of the LEP and is not stated in the strategies of the LEP, which were only updated in March 2012. The LEP strategies can be found at http://www.cwlep.com/cwlep-strategy

There is a clear conflict of interest in having this statement within the Local Plan, as a board member of the LEP (Sir Peter Rigby) is also the land owner for land within project and has also formed a joint venture between 'Rigby Family Holdings Ltd' and 'Roxhill Developments', which is the developer behind this proposal. This 50/50 joint venture being Coventry & Warwickshire Development Partnership. There is a material interest referring to the LEP within the Local Plan

This statement should also not rule out or eliminate the use of multiple or existing sites.

2) It has the potential to provide in the region of 14,000 jobs
This is inaccurate and misleading, specifically in relation to planning within Warwick District Council. Part of this proposal and 4,000 of the potential jobs are within the Coventry City Council boundary, it already has planning permission and is already being developed. This is currently named 'Whitley Business Park.
The WDC Local Plan should specially refer to potential jobs related to development within WDC boundary only.

3) facilitate major improvements to the transport network.
This is inaccurate and misleading as the Highways Agency has already identified and scheduled the major road improvements around Tollbar Island (A45/A46) and has committed to proceed in 2013. Commencement of the Highway Agencies improvements is not conditional to the Coventry Gateway proposal.
This proposal will NOT facilitate any major improvements to the road network, but will only add more traffic at these already congested points.
There is no evidence or rational to support this statement, thus it should be removed from paragraph 8.33.

4) The Council is supportive in principle but considers that further work is needed to justify the identification of this site
This sentence should be modified to include 'or use of multiple sites'
Additionally, rather than just supporting in principle, the council should also state its preference which should include the use of existing brownfield sites within the sub-region or other developed land before using green belt land.
This should be modified to state 'The Council is supportive in principle, but its preferred options remain the use of existing brownfield sites and other already approved or developed sites within the sub-region. Further work is required to justify the identification of a suitable sites or use of multiple sites'

5) To demonstrate that there are not any other preferable and suitable sites within the sub-region,
The word 'preferable' should be removed from this bullet and this is subjective, not quantifiable and does not state to whom it must be preferable.
This bullet point should also be extended to
a) Include a review of all existing developed land within the sub-region, with the sub-region noted as Warwickshire County Council & West Midlands
b) Include usage of multiple sites, existing developed land, sites which are already approved for development and land already developed under permitted development rights (i.e. Land within the Coventry Airport boundary itself)
As this proposal is for 3 phases and 1 part of this is already approved and within Coventry City Council's boundary, suitable alternatives within the sub-region should be considered by phase only.

6) To understand the local impacts of a major development at the Gateway in relation to housing and employment need and the District's transport infrastructure
This bullet totally fails to address the impacts to the environment or wildlife.

7) To explore the case for releasing land in the green belt
This should be modified to state 'To explore and justify the case for releasing land within the green belt when existing brownfield and approved sites for development within the sub-region remain under-utilized and unoccupied'.

8) Additional bullets that should be added are:

* To justify the potential job opportunities, how many will be transferred from existing employment areas and assess the impact on the area's/developments from which the jobs will transfer.

* Explore the potential to utilize the land within the existing airport boundary for this development, as this is already developed under permitted development rights and would prevent further encroachment onto green belt land that has not been developed.


8.34. The Council is working with partners on the CWLEP and neighbouring local authorities to undertake this research.

Please clarify which neighbouring local authorities are involved in undertaking this research?
Rugby Borough Council should be a key partner in this research, as they have 2 sites (Ansty Business Park & the Peugeot Ryton site) already approved as a Technology Park and a Logistics Park (with existing road infrastructure) which would be impacted by this proposal.

Again, there is a conflict of Interest in this statement and the CWLEP cannot be deemed independent in any research or evaluation (see section 1 above).
Any research should be conducted by an independent 3rd party without material interest in the proposal.



Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and the points outlined.

Please return correspondence noting that you have received this letter and will consider for inclusion into the final Local Plan.

Object

Preferred Options

Representation ID: 49063

Received: 18/07/2012

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Cutler

Representation Summary:

The second bullet point under paragraph 8.33 does not address the impacts to the environment or wildlife.

Full text:

We are writing to make comment and respond regarding the New Local Plan and the related consultation process.
We have attempted to use the on-line response process and registered, but this failed.

Below are comments and input specifically related to sections 8.33 and 8.34 of the draft New Local Plan.


Existing Sections of Draft Local Plan

8.33. Coventry Gateway - The Coventry and Warwickshire LEP is committed to the identification of a site of regional importance for employment to serve the needs of the Coventry and Warwickshire sub region and have indicated that land at Coventry and Warwickshire Gateway (see Map 3) could be a suitable site. It has the potential to provide in the region of 14,000 jobs as well as facilitate major improvements to the transport network. The Council is supportive in principle but considers that further work is needed to justify the identification of this site:

* To demonstrate that there are not any other preferable and suitable sites
within the sub-region,
* To understand the local impacts of a major development at the Gateway
in relation to housing and employment need and the District's transport
infrastructure
* To explore the case for releasing land in the green belt

1) The Coventry and Warwickshire LEP is committed to the identification of a site of regional importance
The key ambitions of the LEP are clearly stated in section 8.18 of the draft local plan. These do not include the identification of 'a site of regional importance'.
The words 'committed to the identification of a site of regional importance' should be removed as this does not align with the key ambitions stated in section 8.18, this is not stated in the vision of the LEP and is not stated in the strategies of the LEP, which were only updated in March 2012. The LEP strategies can be found at http://www.cwlep.com/cwlep-strategy

There is a clear conflict of interest in having this statement within the Local Plan, as a board member of the LEP (Sir Peter Rigby) is also the land owner for land within project and has also formed a joint venture between 'Rigby Family Holdings Ltd' and 'Roxhill Developments', which is the developer behind this proposal. This 50/50 joint venture being Coventry & Warwickshire Development Partnership. There is a material interest referring to the LEP within the Local Plan

This statement should also not rule out or eliminate the use of multiple or existing sites.

2) It has the potential to provide in the region of 14,000 jobs
This is inaccurate and misleading, specifically in relation to planning within Warwick District Council. Part of this proposal and 4,000 of the potential jobs are within the Coventry City Council boundary, it already has planning permission and is already being developed. This is currently named 'Whitley Business Park.
The WDC Local Plan should specially refer to potential jobs related to development within WDC boundary only.

3) facilitate major improvements to the transport network.
This is inaccurate and misleading as the Highways Agency has already identified and scheduled the major road improvements around Tollbar Island (A45/A46) and has committed to proceed in 2013. Commencement of the Highway Agencies improvements is not conditional to the Coventry Gateway proposal.
This proposal will NOT facilitate any major improvements to the road network, but will only add more traffic at these already congested points.
There is no evidence or rational to support this statement, thus it should be removed from paragraph 8.33.

4) The Council is supportive in principle but considers that further work is needed to justify the identification of this site
This sentence should be modified to include 'or use of multiple sites'
Additionally, rather than just supporting in principle, the council should also state its preference which should include the use of existing brownfield sites within the sub-region or other developed land before using green belt land.
This should be modified to state 'The Council is supportive in principle, but its preferred options remain the use of existing brownfield sites and other already approved or developed sites within the sub-region. Further work is required to justify the identification of a suitable sites or use of multiple sites'

5) To demonstrate that there are not any other preferable and suitable sites within the sub-region,
The word 'preferable' should be removed from this bullet and this is subjective, not quantifiable and does not state to whom it must be preferable.
This bullet point should also be extended to
a) Include a review of all existing developed land within the sub-region, with the sub-region noted as Warwickshire County Council & West Midlands
b) Include usage of multiple sites, existing developed land, sites which are already approved for development and land already developed under permitted development rights (i.e. Land within the Coventry Airport boundary itself)
As this proposal is for 3 phases and 1 part of this is already approved and within Coventry City Council's boundary, suitable alternatives within the sub-region should be considered by phase only.

6) To understand the local impacts of a major development at the Gateway in relation to housing and employment need and the District's transport infrastructure
This bullet totally fails to address the impacts to the environment or wildlife.

7) To explore the case for releasing land in the green belt
This should be modified to state 'To explore and justify the case for releasing land within the green belt when existing brownfield and approved sites for development within the sub-region remain under-utilized and unoccupied'.

8) Additional bullets that should be added are:

* To justify the potential job opportunities, how many will be transferred from existing employment areas and assess the impact on the area's/developments from which the jobs will transfer.

* Explore the potential to utilize the land within the existing airport boundary for this development, as this is already developed under permitted development rights and would prevent further encroachment onto green belt land that has not been developed.


8.34. The Council is working with partners on the CWLEP and neighbouring local authorities to undertake this research.

Please clarify which neighbouring local authorities are involved in undertaking this research?
Rugby Borough Council should be a key partner in this research, as they have 2 sites (Ansty Business Park & the Peugeot Ryton site) already approved as a Technology Park and a Logistics Park (with existing road infrastructure) which would be impacted by this proposal.

Again, there is a conflict of Interest in this statement and the CWLEP cannot be deemed independent in any research or evaluation (see section 1 above).
Any research should be conducted by an independent 3rd party without material interest in the proposal.



Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and the points outlined.

Please return correspondence noting that you have received this letter and will consider for inclusion into the final Local Plan.

Object

Preferred Options

Representation ID: 49065

Received: 18/07/2012

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Cutler

Representation Summary:

Object to bullet point 3 under paragraph 8.33 which explores the case for releasing land in the green belt. This should be modified to include the text detailed below under Changes to Plan.

Full text:

We are writing to make comment and respond regarding the New Local Plan and the related consultation process.
We have attempted to use the on-line response process and registered, but this failed.

Below are comments and input specifically related to sections 8.33 and 8.34 of the draft New Local Plan.


Existing Sections of Draft Local Plan

8.33. Coventry Gateway - The Coventry and Warwickshire LEP is committed to the identification of a site of regional importance for employment to serve the needs of the Coventry and Warwickshire sub region and have indicated that land at Coventry and Warwickshire Gateway (see Map 3) could be a suitable site. It has the potential to provide in the region of 14,000 jobs as well as facilitate major improvements to the transport network. The Council is supportive in principle but considers that further work is needed to justify the identification of this site:

* To demonstrate that there are not any other preferable and suitable sites
within the sub-region,
* To understand the local impacts of a major development at the Gateway
in relation to housing and employment need and the District's transport
infrastructure
* To explore the case for releasing land in the green belt

1) The Coventry and Warwickshire LEP is committed to the identification of a site of regional importance
The key ambitions of the LEP are clearly stated in section 8.18 of the draft local plan. These do not include the identification of 'a site of regional importance'.
The words 'committed to the identification of a site of regional importance' should be removed as this does not align with the key ambitions stated in section 8.18, this is not stated in the vision of the LEP and is not stated in the strategies of the LEP, which were only updated in March 2012. The LEP strategies can be found at http://www.cwlep.com/cwlep-strategy

There is a clear conflict of interest in having this statement within the Local Plan, as a board member of the LEP (Sir Peter Rigby) is also the land owner for land within project and has also formed a joint venture between 'Rigby Family Holdings Ltd' and 'Roxhill Developments', which is the developer behind this proposal. This 50/50 joint venture being Coventry & Warwickshire Development Partnership. There is a material interest referring to the LEP within the Local Plan

This statement should also not rule out or eliminate the use of multiple or existing sites.

2) It has the potential to provide in the region of 14,000 jobs
This is inaccurate and misleading, specifically in relation to planning within Warwick District Council. Part of this proposal and 4,000 of the potential jobs are within the Coventry City Council boundary, it already has planning permission and is already being developed. This is currently named 'Whitley Business Park.
The WDC Local Plan should specially refer to potential jobs related to development within WDC boundary only.

3) facilitate major improvements to the transport network.
This is inaccurate and misleading as the Highways Agency has already identified and scheduled the major road improvements around Tollbar Island (A45/A46) and has committed to proceed in 2013. Commencement of the Highway Agencies improvements is not conditional to the Coventry Gateway proposal.
This proposal will NOT facilitate any major improvements to the road network, but will only add more traffic at these already congested points.
There is no evidence or rational to support this statement, thus it should be removed from paragraph 8.33.

4) The Council is supportive in principle but considers that further work is needed to justify the identification of this site
This sentence should be modified to include 'or use of multiple sites'
Additionally, rather than just supporting in principle, the council should also state its preference which should include the use of existing brownfield sites within the sub-region or other developed land before using green belt land.
This should be modified to state 'The Council is supportive in principle, but its preferred options remain the use of existing brownfield sites and other already approved or developed sites within the sub-region. Further work is required to justify the identification of a suitable sites or use of multiple sites'

5) To demonstrate that there are not any other preferable and suitable sites within the sub-region,
The word 'preferable' should be removed from this bullet and this is subjective, not quantifiable and does not state to whom it must be preferable.
This bullet point should also be extended to
a) Include a review of all existing developed land within the sub-region, with the sub-region noted as Warwickshire County Council & West Midlands
b) Include usage of multiple sites, existing developed land, sites which are already approved for development and land already developed under permitted development rights (i.e. Land within the Coventry Airport boundary itself)
As this proposal is for 3 phases and 1 part of this is already approved and within Coventry City Council's boundary, suitable alternatives within the sub-region should be considered by phase only.

6) To understand the local impacts of a major development at the Gateway in relation to housing and employment need and the District's transport infrastructure
This bullet totally fails to address the impacts to the environment or wildlife.

7) To explore the case for releasing land in the green belt
This should be modified to state 'To explore and justify the case for releasing land within the green belt when existing brownfield and approved sites for development within the sub-region remain under-utilized and unoccupied'.

8) Additional bullets that should be added are:

* To justify the potential job opportunities, how many will be transferred from existing employment areas and assess the impact on the area's/developments from which the jobs will transfer.

* Explore the potential to utilize the land within the existing airport boundary for this development, as this is already developed under permitted development rights and would prevent further encroachment onto green belt land that has not been developed.


8.34. The Council is working with partners on the CWLEP and neighbouring local authorities to undertake this research.

Please clarify which neighbouring local authorities are involved in undertaking this research?
Rugby Borough Council should be a key partner in this research, as they have 2 sites (Ansty Business Park & the Peugeot Ryton site) already approved as a Technology Park and a Logistics Park (with existing road infrastructure) which would be impacted by this proposal.

Again, there is a conflict of Interest in this statement and the CWLEP cannot be deemed independent in any research or evaluation (see section 1 above).
Any research should be conducted by an independent 3rd party without material interest in the proposal.



Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and the points outlined.

Please return correspondence noting that you have received this letter and will consider for inclusion into the final Local Plan.

Object

Preferred Options

Representation ID: 49067

Received: 18/07/2012

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Cutler

Representation Summary:

Additional bullets should be added to paragraph 8.33 which cover the justification of potential job opportunities and displacement impacts as well as the potential to use land within the existing airport boundary.



Full text:

We are writing to make comment and respond regarding the New Local Plan and the related consultation process.
We have attempted to use the on-line response process and registered, but this failed.

Below are comments and input specifically related to sections 8.33 and 8.34 of the draft New Local Plan.


Existing Sections of Draft Local Plan

8.33. Coventry Gateway - The Coventry and Warwickshire LEP is committed to the identification of a site of regional importance for employment to serve the needs of the Coventry and Warwickshire sub region and have indicated that land at Coventry and Warwickshire Gateway (see Map 3) could be a suitable site. It has the potential to provide in the region of 14,000 jobs as well as facilitate major improvements to the transport network. The Council is supportive in principle but considers that further work is needed to justify the identification of this site:

* To demonstrate that there are not any other preferable and suitable sites
within the sub-region,
* To understand the local impacts of a major development at the Gateway
in relation to housing and employment need and the District's transport
infrastructure
* To explore the case for releasing land in the green belt

1) The Coventry and Warwickshire LEP is committed to the identification of a site of regional importance
The key ambitions of the LEP are clearly stated in section 8.18 of the draft local plan. These do not include the identification of 'a site of regional importance'.
The words 'committed to the identification of a site of regional importance' should be removed as this does not align with the key ambitions stated in section 8.18, this is not stated in the vision of the LEP and is not stated in the strategies of the LEP, which were only updated in March 2012. The LEP strategies can be found at http://www.cwlep.com/cwlep-strategy

There is a clear conflict of interest in having this statement within the Local Plan, as a board member of the LEP (Sir Peter Rigby) is also the land owner for land within project and has also formed a joint venture between 'Rigby Family Holdings Ltd' and 'Roxhill Developments', which is the developer behind this proposal. This 50/50 joint venture being Coventry & Warwickshire Development Partnership. There is a material interest referring to the LEP within the Local Plan

This statement should also not rule out or eliminate the use of multiple or existing sites.

2) It has the potential to provide in the region of 14,000 jobs
This is inaccurate and misleading, specifically in relation to planning within Warwick District Council. Part of this proposal and 4,000 of the potential jobs are within the Coventry City Council boundary, it already has planning permission and is already being developed. This is currently named 'Whitley Business Park.
The WDC Local Plan should specially refer to potential jobs related to development within WDC boundary only.

3) facilitate major improvements to the transport network.
This is inaccurate and misleading as the Highways Agency has already identified and scheduled the major road improvements around Tollbar Island (A45/A46) and has committed to proceed in 2013. Commencement of the Highway Agencies improvements is not conditional to the Coventry Gateway proposal.
This proposal will NOT facilitate any major improvements to the road network, but will only add more traffic at these already congested points.
There is no evidence or rational to support this statement, thus it should be removed from paragraph 8.33.

4) The Council is supportive in principle but considers that further work is needed to justify the identification of this site
This sentence should be modified to include 'or use of multiple sites'
Additionally, rather than just supporting in principle, the council should also state its preference which should include the use of existing brownfield sites within the sub-region or other developed land before using green belt land.
This should be modified to state 'The Council is supportive in principle, but its preferred options remain the use of existing brownfield sites and other already approved or developed sites within the sub-region. Further work is required to justify the identification of a suitable sites or use of multiple sites'

5) To demonstrate that there are not any other preferable and suitable sites within the sub-region,
The word 'preferable' should be removed from this bullet and this is subjective, not quantifiable and does not state to whom it must be preferable.
This bullet point should also be extended to
a) Include a review of all existing developed land within the sub-region, with the sub-region noted as Warwickshire County Council & West Midlands
b) Include usage of multiple sites, existing developed land, sites which are already approved for development and land already developed under permitted development rights (i.e. Land within the Coventry Airport boundary itself)
As this proposal is for 3 phases and 1 part of this is already approved and within Coventry City Council's boundary, suitable alternatives within the sub-region should be considered by phase only.

6) To understand the local impacts of a major development at the Gateway in relation to housing and employment need and the District's transport infrastructure
This bullet totally fails to address the impacts to the environment or wildlife.

7) To explore the case for releasing land in the green belt
This should be modified to state 'To explore and justify the case for releasing land within the green belt when existing brownfield and approved sites for development within the sub-region remain under-utilized and unoccupied'.

8) Additional bullets that should be added are:

* To justify the potential job opportunities, how many will be transferred from existing employment areas and assess the impact on the area's/developments from which the jobs will transfer.

* Explore the potential to utilize the land within the existing airport boundary for this development, as this is already developed under permitted development rights and would prevent further encroachment onto green belt land that has not been developed.


8.34. The Council is working with partners on the CWLEP and neighbouring local authorities to undertake this research.

Please clarify which neighbouring local authorities are involved in undertaking this research?
Rugby Borough Council should be a key partner in this research, as they have 2 sites (Ansty Business Park & the Peugeot Ryton site) already approved as a Technology Park and a Logistics Park (with existing road infrastructure) which would be impacted by this proposal.

Again, there is a conflict of Interest in this statement and the CWLEP cannot be deemed independent in any research or evaluation (see section 1 above).
Any research should be conducted by an independent 3rd party without material interest in the proposal.



Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and the points outlined.

Please return correspondence noting that you have received this letter and will consider for inclusion into the final Local Plan.

Object

Preferred Options

Representation ID: 49070

Received: 18/07/2012

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Cutler

Representation Summary:

There is a need to clarify which neighbouring authorities the Council has engaged with in undertaking research. In addition, the CWLEP can not be deemed as independent in any research or evaluation and this should be undertaken by an independent 3rd party without material interest in the proposal.

Full text:

We are writing to make comment and respond regarding the New Local Plan and the related consultation process.
We have attempted to use the on-line response process and registered, but this failed.

Below are comments and input specifically related to sections 8.33 and 8.34 of the draft New Local Plan.


Existing Sections of Draft Local Plan

8.33. Coventry Gateway - The Coventry and Warwickshire LEP is committed to the identification of a site of regional importance for employment to serve the needs of the Coventry and Warwickshire sub region and have indicated that land at Coventry and Warwickshire Gateway (see Map 3) could be a suitable site. It has the potential to provide in the region of 14,000 jobs as well as facilitate major improvements to the transport network. The Council is supportive in principle but considers that further work is needed to justify the identification of this site:

* To demonstrate that there are not any other preferable and suitable sites
within the sub-region,
* To understand the local impacts of a major development at the Gateway
in relation to housing and employment need and the District's transport
infrastructure
* To explore the case for releasing land in the green belt

1) The Coventry and Warwickshire LEP is committed to the identification of a site of regional importance
The key ambitions of the LEP are clearly stated in section 8.18 of the draft local plan. These do not include the identification of 'a site of regional importance'.
The words 'committed to the identification of a site of regional importance' should be removed as this does not align with the key ambitions stated in section 8.18, this is not stated in the vision of the LEP and is not stated in the strategies of the LEP, which were only updated in March 2012. The LEP strategies can be found at http://www.cwlep.com/cwlep-strategy

There is a clear conflict of interest in having this statement within the Local Plan, as a board member of the LEP (Sir Peter Rigby) is also the land owner for land within project and has also formed a joint venture between 'Rigby Family Holdings Ltd' and 'Roxhill Developments', which is the developer behind this proposal. This 50/50 joint venture being Coventry & Warwickshire Development Partnership. There is a material interest referring to the LEP within the Local Plan

This statement should also not rule out or eliminate the use of multiple or existing sites.

2) It has the potential to provide in the region of 14,000 jobs
This is inaccurate and misleading, specifically in relation to planning within Warwick District Council. Part of this proposal and 4,000 of the potential jobs are within the Coventry City Council boundary, it already has planning permission and is already being developed. This is currently named 'Whitley Business Park.
The WDC Local Plan should specially refer to potential jobs related to development within WDC boundary only.

3) facilitate major improvements to the transport network.
This is inaccurate and misleading as the Highways Agency has already identified and scheduled the major road improvements around Tollbar Island (A45/A46) and has committed to proceed in 2013. Commencement of the Highway Agencies improvements is not conditional to the Coventry Gateway proposal.
This proposal will NOT facilitate any major improvements to the road network, but will only add more traffic at these already congested points.
There is no evidence or rational to support this statement, thus it should be removed from paragraph 8.33.

4) The Council is supportive in principle but considers that further work is needed to justify the identification of this site
This sentence should be modified to include 'or use of multiple sites'
Additionally, rather than just supporting in principle, the council should also state its preference which should include the use of existing brownfield sites within the sub-region or other developed land before using green belt land.
This should be modified to state 'The Council is supportive in principle, but its preferred options remain the use of existing brownfield sites and other already approved or developed sites within the sub-region. Further work is required to justify the identification of a suitable sites or use of multiple sites'

5) To demonstrate that there are not any other preferable and suitable sites within the sub-region,
The word 'preferable' should be removed from this bullet and this is subjective, not quantifiable and does not state to whom it must be preferable.
This bullet point should also be extended to
a) Include a review of all existing developed land within the sub-region, with the sub-region noted as Warwickshire County Council & West Midlands
b) Include usage of multiple sites, existing developed land, sites which are already approved for development and land already developed under permitted development rights (i.e. Land within the Coventry Airport boundary itself)
As this proposal is for 3 phases and 1 part of this is already approved and within Coventry City Council's boundary, suitable alternatives within the sub-region should be considered by phase only.

6) To understand the local impacts of a major development at the Gateway in relation to housing and employment need and the District's transport infrastructure
This bullet totally fails to address the impacts to the environment or wildlife.

7) To explore the case for releasing land in the green belt
This should be modified to state 'To explore and justify the case for releasing land within the green belt when existing brownfield and approved sites for development within the sub-region remain under-utilized and unoccupied'.

8) Additional bullets that should be added are:

* To justify the potential job opportunities, how many will be transferred from existing employment areas and assess the impact on the area's/developments from which the jobs will transfer.

* Explore the potential to utilize the land within the existing airport boundary for this development, as this is already developed under permitted development rights and would prevent further encroachment onto green belt land that has not been developed.


8.34. The Council is working with partners on the CWLEP and neighbouring local authorities to undertake this research.

Please clarify which neighbouring local authorities are involved in undertaking this research?
Rugby Borough Council should be a key partner in this research, as they have 2 sites (Ansty Business Park & the Peugeot Ryton site) already approved as a Technology Park and a Logistics Park (with existing road infrastructure) which would be impacted by this proposal.

Again, there is a conflict of Interest in this statement and the CWLEP cannot be deemed independent in any research or evaluation (see section 1 above).
Any research should be conducted by an independent 3rd party without material interest in the proposal.



Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and the points outlined.

Please return correspondence noting that you have received this letter and will consider for inclusion into the final Local Plan.

Object

Preferred Options

Representation ID: 49430

Received: 19/07/2012

Respondent: Mr Steve Williams

Representation Summary:

BPC object (supported by almost 100 residents in writing) to the gateway proposal for the following reasons:
- The proposal is contrary to the greenbelt protection policies as set out in the NPPF and will also destroy the village character.
- The environmental effects of the gateway have not been fully considered, including the 24/7 HGV operations.
- The proposal will impact on highways proposals (Tollbar Island).
- The smart card system lacks detail and is potentially unworkable.
- Closing Bubbenhall Road and Rowley Road will destroy the many local rural businesses which thrive in Baginton Parish.
- The provision of a new road west of the runway - could pave the way for future runway expansion.
- There are other preferable large-scale employment sites that have not been fully considered.
- There is 23 hectares of business development land proposed within WDC boundaries separate to that of the Gateway.
- The jobs number is misleading and inaccurate - with 4000 of the jobs north of the A45 (Coventry) and many jobs will not be newly created. The plan should only reference jobs in the WDC area.

Full text:

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.