1 Introduction

Showing comments and forms 1 to 11 of 11

Object

Revised Development Strategy

Representation ID: 52703

Received: 05/07/2013

Respondent: Mrs Trudi Wheat

Representation Summary:

1.2
It is very difficult to have a strategic vision with a "joined up approach"(P4)
when hs2's "land take" is not included.
I know we are fighting HS2 but it will change the map from Cubbington to Kenilworth/Burton Green.It is green belt land

Full text:

1.2
It is very difficult to have a strategic vision with a "joined up approach"(P4)
when hs2's "land take" is not included.
I know we are fighting HS2 but it will change the map from Cubbington to Kenilworth/Burton Green.It is green belt land

Object

Revised Development Strategy

Representation ID: 52704

Received: 05/07/2013

Respondent: Mrs Trudi Wheat

Representation Summary:

1.4
Who does have the overall "plan" that encompasses everything. How can we envisage what our part of Warwickshire will look like? Stoneleigh Park developments, with access roads off of the A46 /HS2 etc.

Full text:

1.4
Who does have the overall "plan" that encompasses everything. How can we envisage what our part of Warwickshire will look like? Stoneleigh Park developments, with access roads off of the A46 /HS2 etc.

Support

Revised Development Strategy

Representation ID: 52736

Received: 07/07/2013

Respondent: G Ralph

Representation Summary:

After taking into account all previous objection I am please that The plans have been revised. I think you have managed to achieve a much better plan however I have every sympathy with the planners as this is a difficult situation. I am happy to support this revised plan

Full text:

After taking into account all previous objection I am please that The plans have been revised. I think you have managed to achieve a much better plan however I have every sympathy with the planners as this is a difficult situation. I am happy to support this revised plan

Object

Revised Development Strategy

Representation ID: 54142

Received: 29/07/2013

Respondent: Mr Martin Foley

Representation Summary:

I am concerned that work regarding the evidence base to support the final proposals is 'ongoing'. Whilst the plan states that you believe the evidence base to be robust, the fact remains that not all the evidence has been gathered. It is critical that future population projects are accurate and I hope it is possible to build a consensus around this.

Full text:

I am concerned that work regarding the evidence base to support the final proposals is 'ongoing'. Whilst the plan states that you believe the evidence base to be robust, the fact remains that not all the evidence has been gathered. It is critical that future population projects are accurate and I hope it is possible to build a consensus around this.

Support

Revised Development Strategy

Representation ID: 54320

Received: 29/07/2013

Respondent: Midland Red (South) Ltd. dba Stagecoach Midlands

Representation Summary:

Stagecoach Midlands is a key stakeholder in delivering sustainable development in Warwick District, and welcomes the opportunity to shape the Strategy.

Full text:

Thank you for the opportunity of commenting on the Warwick Local Plan Revised Development Strategy.
Midland Red (South) Ltd trading as Stagecoach Midlands, is the leading commercial bus operator in Warwickshire. The company operates the vast majority of bus services in Warwick District, including Leamington Spa and Whitnash, where we operate a comprehensive network designed to offer both convenient local trips, but at least as important, services offering residents effective choices for longer journeys. The great majority of these routes are commercial, fully funded by our passengers
We also operate services supported by Warwickshire County Council, won following tenders for best value. We always strive through disciplined reliable operation, quality customer service and on-board experience, and effective marketing, to build revenue on such services as far as possible with a view to taking them on without public funding at a future date, where possible. These services to a great extent follow timetables and routes specified by WCC, as socially necessary services, where patronage today could not support a commercial operation by us or another bus company.
Stagecoach in particular has a national, independently assessed reputation for delivering among the highest levels of customer satisfaction. As well as offering reliable convenient services we are constantly investing both in existing services and our operational bus fleet, and developing new products and services aimed explicitly at providing greener smarter travel choices to the public, and especially those who do not yet regularly travel by bus.
Stagecoach proactively seeks to identify and pursue business development opportunities, and the company recognises the role it plays in delivering sustainable development. We welcome the opportunity to comment on, and help shape development proposals to the advantage of the community and the wider travelling public.
High-quality bus services are one of the most credible means of preventing car dependency, mitigating local highways impacts as far as possible, and achieving sustainable development. This includes not only environmental but also socio-economic goals.
We submit that there is a clear alignment of interests between stakeholders in the planning system, and ourselves and other commercial bus operators.

Object

Revised Development Strategy

Representation ID: 54923

Received: 12/07/2013

Respondent: Dr Kate Holtby

Representation Summary:

As a local GP, is very concerned about the pressure on the local primary and secondary care services. None of these proposals seem to address this. They talk of schools and parks but not doctors surgeries or extension to the local hospital.

There needs to be proper communication between the council and the CCG on this subject. This is also relevant for the traveller sites to ensure they get proper access to healthcare.

Full text:

As a local GP I am very concerned about the pressure on the local primary and secondary care services. None of these proprosals seem to address this. They talk of schools and parks but not doctors surgeries or extension to the local hospital.

I think there needs to be proper communication between the council and the CCG on this subject. This is also relevent for the traveller sites to ensure they get proper access to healthcare.

Object

Revised Development Strategy

Representation ID: 54950

Received: 29/07/2013

Respondent: Sarah Hunt

Representation Summary:

Para 1.2 refers to "the need to take in to account what our neighbours and partners are planning to do over the next 15 years."

Yet the RDS appears to completely fail to take in to account the proposal by Stratford on Avon District Council to build 4800 houses at Gaydon/Lighthorne.

The effect on Warwick and Leamington Spa of such proposal will be immense in respect of increased traffic, pollution and use of the hospital and other amenities.

Such an increase must be taken in to account in preparation of the Local Plan, as it will impact on the local infrastructure.

Para 1.3 refers to "some work regarding the evidence base to support the final proposal for the Local Plan is on going."

We have not been advised as to the nature of the evidence that is not yet available.

It is noted that no reference is made to the Environment Agency and the undoubted problem that the area has in respect of flooding.

What impact is anticipated in areas of identified flood risk if the proposals contained in the RDS are implemented?

The last Flood Report obtained by the Council appears to have been undertaken in 2008. Since then the country has been subjected to the highest recorded levels of rainfall.

The fields upon which the proposed homes are to be built remained water logged for several weeks after the winter storms and absorbed rainfall, which would otherwise have come down in to Warwick.

Has there been/will there be any report prepared based on the proposal to build on such a large site situated south of the River Avon and on high ground? Will the District Council provide a flood plan and appropriate compensation should the need arise?

How can a plan be formulated when not all the relevant evidence is available? Surely no decisions should be made until the Strategic Housing Market Assessment is complete?

This would appear to be the view of the Inspector appointed to review Coventry Council's Core Strategy.

It is understood that homes are required to accommodate the proposed employees at the Gateway Project close to Coventry Airport at Bagington.

Situating housing for those employees on the other side of Leamington and Warwick, two established and historic towns with existing traffic problems, is totally inappropriate.

If the Government's wish to reduce car usage and pollution are to have any credence then the housing should be situated closer to the Gateway Project site.

Para 1.4 confirms that not all topics are included and it is hoped that no decisions will be made until all the evidence is available.

Full text:

I refer to the Revised Development Strategy for the Local Plan and write to register my objection to the proposed development of land to the south of Warwick as follows:

Introduction
It is noted that in the Introduction reference is made in para 1.2 to "the need to take in to account what our neighbours and partners are planning to do over the next 15 years."

The Revised Development Strategy appears to completely fail to take in to account the proposal by Stratford on Avon District Council to build 4800 houses at Gaydon/Lighthorne. The effect on Warwick and Leamington Spa of such proposal will be immense in respect of increased traffic, pollution and use of the hospital and other amenities. Such an increase must be taken in to account in preparation of the Local Plan, as it will impact on the local infrastructure.

Para 1.3 refers to "some work regarding the evidence base to support the final proposal for the Local Plan is on going."

We have not been advised as to the nature of the evidence that is not yet available. It is noted that no reference is made to the Environment Agency and the undoubted problem that the area has in respect of flooding. At the present time the Environment Agency places the postcode in which I reside as "moderate risk." What impact is anticipated if the proposals contained in the Revised Development Strategy are implemented? The last Flood Report obtained by the Council appears to have been undertaken in 2008. Since then the country has been subjected to the highest recorded levels of rainfall. The fields upon which the proposed homes are to be built remained water logged for several weeks after the winter storms and absorbed rainfall, which would otherwise have come down in to Warwick. Has there been/will there be any report prepared based on the proposal to build on such a large site situated south of the River Avon and on high ground? Will the District Council provide a flood plan and appropriate compensation should the need arise?

How can a plan be formulated when not all the relevant evidence is available? Surely no decisions should be made until the Strategic Housing Market Assessment has been made, and this would appear to be the view of the Inspector appointed to review Coventry Council's Core Strategy. It is disputed that number of homes proposed are actually required, and there is a suspicion that the wishes of the Developers is being put before actual need.

At the present time it is understood that homes are required to accommodate the proposed employees at the Gateway Project close to Coventry Airport at Bagington. Situating housing for those employees on the other side of Leamington and Warwick, two established and historic towns with existing traffic problems, is totally inappropriate. If the Government's wish to reduce car usage and pollution are to have any credence then the housing should be situated closer to the Gateway Project site.

Para 1.4 confirms that not all topics are included and it is sincerely hoped that no decisions will be made until all the evidence is available.

The Local Plan and Consultation
The issues referred to in respect of process are noted. There is however considerable concern locally that there is now a degree of 'panic' by the District Council as they have radically changed the proposed areas for development from the Preferred Options consultation. There appears to have been a failure to consider changes to the greenbelt to enable the obvious and more appropriate development to the north of Leamington Spa. Whilst the earlier proposal of development to the south of Warwick was not welcomed, the massive increase now proposed appears to be an attempt to do something, indeed anything, even if it is wholly inappropriate. It has is also unfair to the local community, who have now been presented with a significantly increased area of proposed development with only just over six weeks (in the holiday period) to respond.

Strategic Vision
Although certain paragraphs have been included in the Revised Development Strategy that are referred to in the Sustainable Community Strategy, the document itself refers to "A shared vision", and refers at length to the different local groups/agencies with whom it proposes to consult. However, it is clear from the District Council's own research that the local community were hardly aware of the Preferred Options Consultation yet alone the Revised Development Strategy. We are further advised that all Warwick Town Councillors and the two representatives on the District Council have unanimously opposed the proposed development south of Warwick. How then is the proposal to build south of Warwick "a shared vision"?

Page 16 of the Housing Strategic Aim refers to issues including "working closely with Community forums/neighbourhood groups..." and yet the District Councillors responsible for planning have been unavailable to attend meetings with concerned residents.

Level of Housing Growth
Until the Joint Strategic Housing Market Assessment with neighbouring authorities has been completed, such a large development south of Warwick should not even be contemplated. The figures the Council intend to rely upon in the interim are not accepted and cannot be until the Gateway Project has been finalised.

It has been noted that the Chase Meadow development in Warwick had not yet been completed and again, no reference is contained in the Revised Strategy to the planned development at Gaydon/Lighthorne.


Broad Location of Development: Housing
The concerns raised in para 4.3.3 remain, and have not been answered by the additional research. Indeed, RMA Consultants recommend in relation to the land south of Gallows Hill and The Asps that "...this area should be protected from development."

The Council's own research in to local issues confirm that traffic and environmental pollution are of concern. The Strategic Transport Plan does not address those issues. The plan for four lanes of traffic along Banbury Road will not produce a solution to the two lanes available over the Bridge. Myton Road is already acknowledged to have excess traffic and the location of two schools in the road will make any increase in traffic extremely dangerous. The same applies in respect of additional traffic funnelled through the centre of Warwick. The existing level of traffic and the delays caused are of grave concern to the residents and inappropriate in a town containing historic buildings. The proposed plans seem to completely ignore the issue of Conservation Areas.

If Warwick is subject to an even greater level of traffic it is inevitable that the existing pavements will have to be reduced in size and safely barriers will have to be constructed. To ignore the location of the schools in the centre of Warwick is to ignore obvious safety issues. Will visitors wish to come to Warwick when it is no longer safe to walk, and pollution levels make it unpleasant and dangerous to do so?

The Overview of Development - Map 2 indicates the completely disproportionate level of building proposed to the south of Warwick. The infrastructure will not be able to cope. The Council refer to 'mitigating' the effects of traffic, but the proposals to do so are totally inadequate. The same applies to their response to the concerns for the historic centre of Warwick and the environmental impact.

I regret that I have not been able to respond in detail to all of the documents referred to on the Council website as the requirement to register my objection on time has been my primary concern. I am however deeply troubled by the Council's approach to earlier concerns raised, and the implications for opposition to the Revised Development Strategy in that problems with infrastructure, environment, traffic, pollution etc appear to have been dismissed with the term "this will be mitigated." There are no solutions to a plan, which places a disproportionately large development on the wrong side of a river, with increased levels of traffic passing through an historic town with inadequate roads and infrastructure to cope.

Support

Revised Development Strategy

Representation ID: 55429

Received: 29/07/2013

Respondent: Lenco Investments

Agent: RPS Planning

Representation Summary:

On the whole RPS supports the Strategic Vision, which provides specific principles relating to key elements of sustainable development, including meeting housing needs of existing and future population of the District. This includes identifying land for approximately 550 new homes per year on new allocated sites, totalling 9,900 allocated dwellings to be delivered between 2011 and 2029.

Full text:

see atatched

Attachments:

Object

Revised Development Strategy

Representation ID: 55453

Received: 29/07/2013

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Barton Willmore

Representation Summary:

Plan Period: The draft document refers to a 15 year plan period however the plan commencement and end dates of 2011 - 2029 are 18 years apart and the Council should clarify the plan period.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Revised Development Strategy

Representation ID: 57021

Received: 29/07/2013

Respondent: Gleeson Developlments Ltd and Sundial Group

Agent: Savills (L&P) Ltd

Representation Summary:

Paragraph 1.2 confirms the importance of taking account of the evidence and representations submitted on the Local Plan. To date the Council has failed to consider the fundamental issues that our Client's have raised regarding the deliverability of the land at Thickthorn. This includes issues regarding land ownership, collaboration, alternative playing field provision, the capacity of the land to deliver the required development at appropriate densities to reflect the Garden Suburbs approach and the site's identified technical constraints.

Concerned by the statement at paragraph 1.3 of the Strategy that the "housing growth requirements are unlikely to change substantially as a result of the new assessment." Whilst changes to housing requirements in Warwick District may not change, the need to accommodate housing growth from neighbouring authorities may.

Under the Duty to Cooperate, on going dialogue and active engagement is required. The implication of this may be a need to consult further, either on the updated housing figure or a completely revised development strategy. The Council should maintain a flexible and open mind to deal with any issues that may arise.

Full text:

see attached

Object

Revised Development Strategy

Representation ID: 60354

Received: 26/07/2013

Respondent: Home Builders Federation Ltd

Representation Summary:

Plan Period is confusing, refers to a 15 year plan period but the plan commencement and end dates of 2011 - 2029 are 18 years apart, the Council should clarify the plan period.

Duty to co-operate: Warwick DC has 4 neighbouring authorities. At examination the Council will have to demonstrate co-operation within the wider context of neighbouring authorities.

Full text:

see attached