RDS1: The Council is adopting an Interim Level of Growth of 12,300 homes between 2011 and 2029
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57798
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Christopher Cox
The actual number of homes required to meet the projected population growth in the District is 5,400, based on the national Census statistics.
There is no evidence of demand for homes or of a growing economy.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57799
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Sharon Sanderson
The actual number of homes required to meet the projected population growth in the District is 5,400, based on the national Census statistics.
There is no evidence of demand for homes or of a growing economy.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57828
Received: 28/07/2013
Respondent: John Maiden
The ILG figure of 12300 has been called into question and is thought too high. However there seems to be a lack of clarity on this and there seems to be an implication that this could even rise with consequences for building allocations.
I write this with no great belief that any notice will be taken. The District Council approach to the villages involved seems to me to be one of obfuscation and concealment of information. One guesses that this tactic is be able to claim that people have been consulted whilst doing exactly what suits them and the building industry. I restrict my comments to the following three concerns.
1. The ILG figure of 12300 has been called into question and is thought too high. However there seems to be a lack of clarity on this and there seems to be an implication that this could even rise with consequences for building allocations.
2. The scoring criteria for Primary Service Village category is not by any measure objective and seems to be based almost on whim. In the case of Lapworth/Kingswood this seems to be based on an intention that it will be placed in the highest category come hell or high water rather than anything else. .
3. It is accepted that some development in any village is inevitable. With good sense this can be done without affecting too much the character of the place. However in the case of Lapworth the development is now to be concentrated in the area of Kingswood.and proposed level of housing numbers would swamp that area, with adverse effects on the local infrastructure. As to the character of the place, that, of course will go out of the window - but hey what does that matter !
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57835
Received: 28/07/2013
Respondent: Mr & Mrs David Enid Bryan
Surprised at the original numbers of new houses required. Now even more than surprised that the numbers increased in the revised local plan!
Clearly others were too and there now seems to be a strong well-researched campaign that the numbers are too high. The work done by Ray Bullen and the contributions of Chris White, the local MP and the Joint Rural Parish Councils all refer to this point. Believe that their lower estimates are more credible
1. Level of Development required.
The assumptions for the overall growth of the housing market in WDC was taken prior to the recent publication of the 2011 census results which showed a smaller than expected population for the area, This means the the growth for the period 2001 to 2011 was less than expected. If this lower than expected growth continues then the demand for extra development in the area should be less than that in the Plan. To add weight to this the figure of 550 new homes per year has never been achieved in a single year let alone for 15 consecutive years. This whole section should be reviewed in the light of the new figures.
2. Sources of Development Land
The level of brownfield site allocation seems to be low. These sites have appeared more frequently in the past and the migration of industrial sites from town centres is by no means complete. We hope that this area could be reviewed.
3. Allocation of new Greenfield Development Land
The allocation of 10% of the development land to the rural areas seems suspiciously arbitrary and appears to be a political decision to "share the pain". Similarly the selection of 5 "larger" villages to absorb 100 new homes is decidedly arbitrary. Firstly, the 5 selected villages do not have any special characteristics over a number of other villages or rural conurbations. The exclusion of Cubbington, Leek Wootton, Bubbenhall and the Hatton Park/King Edwards conurbation seems perverse. Secondly, the choice of villages which are deemed to have the infrastructure to take the extra development puts extra strain on the existing overburdened infrastructure, especially traffic in these areas. An alternative route, to expand the areas with poorer infrastructure so as to improve the quality of life in these areas does not seem to have been considered. In the case of Hampton Magna and Hatton Park/Kings Meadow and the West Warwick (Chase Meadow) developments, Hampton Magna's facilities are used in great measure by the other two conurbations. An improvement in their local facilities would improve the quality of life in their communities and relieve the strain on the facilities in Hampton Magna, We use this example as we are well aware of our local situation and feel that there may be other areas that also have other communities that are acting as cuckoos in their nest. This strain on the infrastructure of existing communities could be lessened by improving the infrastructure in the satellite communities by the application of CIL money generated from a modest expansion there.
The New Local Plan has to be evidence-based. The arbitrary choice of the five villages, the arbitrary allocation of the same numbers in each of them and the the policy of adding to the already straining infrastructure of these villages rather than improving the infrastructure of those suffering from lack of amenities all show a lack of being based on any evidence at all . We hope that this whole section could be reviewed
4. The situation of Hampton Magna
Hampton Magna was built on a 1960s brownfield site to wit the Royal Warwickshire Barracks at Budbrooke. It was built in the late 60s/early 70s and so is in its fifth decade. As such it has well defined historical boundaries, ie the Barracks perimeter. There has been a little infill over the years and the Parish Council invited Warwickshire Rural Community Council to carry out a Housing Needs Survey which identified a need for 5 houses in the Parish. The need for further development is not locally required nor, according to the Parish Plan is it supported by the local residents who gave their views in a long questionnaire that formed the basis for the Plan.
The basic built infrastructure of Hampton Magna has changed very little from the the early 1970s when the building of the houses was completed. The village is served by C class roads that link us to the Warwick/Birmingham road and Warwick/Henley Road. The electricity supply is very similar to that supplying the barracks and the sewerage system was put in by builders during the period of "the lump". The school has been extended, but is, in essence, still the standard 1960s/70s building that is seen all around the county.
The roads leading to and inside the village become very busy at the peak time, in the morning and evening. The locally generated traffic is increased by the use of the C roads as short cuts from the Birmingham Road to the Henley Road and the A46 and the M40 at junction 15, and by traffic going to and from Warwick Parkway Station. The A 4177 at Stanks roundabout which is the main exit/entry to the village is severely congested every morning and afternoon.
The electricity supply is frequently interrupted for a shorter or longer periods, showing the fragility of the current arrangements
The sewerage system was not adopted by Severn Trent Water Authority until privatisation, when the Authority agreed to adopt the system prior to flotation. The system has not been improved and one of the areas where the system was extended to accommodate a few new house frequently suffers from problems.
The school is very popular and has recently had its standard number increased. Whilst this has improved the viability of the school, it has also lead to a great deal of school time traffic congestion at the beginning and end of school.
The infrastructure of Hampton Magna in these areas is at the limit of its usefulness. There is little that can easily be done to improve the local traffic situation, because of the need to cross canal and railway lines. We are not aware of any plans to improve the electricity or sewerage system locally. The introduction of such a large number of house into this village would lead to a complete overload of these services. We hope that you will look again at the need to use this village as one of the villages for expansion and will take a more pragmatic approach, allowing infill in non village areas and improve the infrastructure in other areas.
5. Overall
The residents of Hampton Magna have long been strong supporters of the green belt, not just around Hampton Magna, but throughout the District. There is a deep suspicion of moving green belt boundaries and if any such changes do prove necessary anywhere in the District it should be done with clarity, leaving no area for doubt or future challenge.
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57858
Received: 26/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs Ann Lazell
Concerened about the level of growth proposed by the RDS and the rapid growth of the local population that will occur as a consequence of the intended housing numbers. This would put heavy pressure on schools and hospitals and doctors surgeries. Car journeys across the district would take longer due to the incraesing congestion that will happen.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57866
Received: 23/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs Chris Davis
We do not need as many houses as proposed. This level of housing will have an horrendous impact on traffic and other infrastructure
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57868
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs Susan Munday
The new draft local plan poses a threat to the town of Kenilworth. The local need is stated to be for fewer than 6,000 new houses by the later 2020's.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57869
Received: 16/07/2013
Respondent: Mr P Sprawson
The proposed level of growth is double what is needed. This will result in congestion, a worsening of pollution levels that are already unacceptable and such a rapid growth in population will place a heavy pressure on schools and hospitals
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57878
Received: 22/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Malcolm Wiles
The proposed level of growth is too high and has not been clearly justified. Where houses are built they need to provide for affordable homes, first time buyers and social housing. It is also vital the schools are build to support new developments and that health faciltiies are expanded. Finally traffic impacts need to be assessed.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57893
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Hallam Land Management and William Davis
Agent: Marrons
It is considered that pending the revised SHMA the scale of housing provision can only be seen as interim. It should however be based on the provision of at least 12,800 homes in line with economic led scenarios in the Economic and Demographic Forecasts Study (December 2012) which give rise to a requirement of between 13,100 and 13,900.
see-attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57902
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mr S J Newey
We should be setting a level of growth to provide for homes that people want and can afford but not growth of the sake of growth. The result of the proposed levels of growth will be congestion, loss of farmland, loss of wildlife and damage to our historic towns
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57903
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Ken & Rena Kelly
The proposals for 12300 houses are way in excess of the 5400 homes required (see locally produced evidence backed up the 2012 SHMA). It is not clear why this report is being ignored.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57905
Received: 24/07/2013
Respondent: Mr & Mrs Michael & Natalia Gasson
The proposed level of housing growth will not cater for first time buyers or those waiting for social housing. It will simply cater of the well-off and landlords. This level of development will lead to more congestion, more air pollution and will make Warwick less pedestrian friendly and attractive place.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57906
Received: 24/07/2013
Respondent: Janet Warren
12000 homes is too many. In reality the local need is around 6000 homes. Local infrastructure simply could not be resourced to support the level of development being proposed. Roads are under significant pressure and Appendix E of the Transport Assessment shows that traffic queues will get worse. In addition, air quality will become even worse and it is already poor in places. The historic charatcer of Warwick will be damaged by the proposals - undemining its unique identity with urban sprawl. The proposed road improvements will further damage the town's identity and will undermine tourism, making Warwick a place of congestion and pollution.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57908
Received: 16/07/2013
Respondent: B E Walker
The proposals include too many houses and faciltiies. 12300 is not fully justified and relies on achieveing a GVA of 2.4% but in so doing igniores quality of life considerations and fails to consider what level opf development can reasonably be sustained. A figure of 6000 houses is more appropriate. Building 12300 houses on greenfield sites in a direct contradiction to the Council's vision.
At the scale of development prooposed social, environmental and economic benefits cannot all be delivered at the same time. Increased traffic congestion and associated air quality issues are amongst the reasons why such a high level of growth cannot be accommodated.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57909
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: R Bricknell
There needs to be more clarity about how many houses are required over what time period. Different information has been provided in different forums. Has information from estate been used about current housing sales and needs? Part of the justifuication for the new houses is to provide for the jobs expansion in the area. However, if all these houses are built it will be harder for local people to acess local jobs.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57917
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Simon & Julie Mills
The proposals for 12300 additional homes is an unnecessary level of growth and will not help to deliver the Council's vision. The actual number of homes required is 5400. The 12300 is also inconsistent with the aim of providing sites for 550 homes per year (total 9900). This figure could be further reduced by taking more account of the empty homes strategy and doing mre to bring empty homes back in to use.
The District has low unemployment. Where will the peole living in the new homes work, particularly as much of the employment land remains vacant and JLR expansion i being provided for Stratford.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57918
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Catherine & Peter Lorimer
The level of new housing proposed is too high and should be fewer than 6000, particularly is more is done to bring empty properties back in to use and ensure developments which have started, but not finished are actually delivered. The level of housing proposed will put more pressure on roads (which are already congested), town centre parking, infrastructure such as the hospital and schools. It will also increase car journeys and associated pollution.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57919
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Martin & Kim Drew & Barnes
-We wish to register a number of objections to the Local Plan RDS. The most important is the need for 12,300 new homes within the next 15 years.
-The total number of houses in the Strategy would require considerably more money from CIL to finance the infrastructure. There are no details as to where this investment would be sourced. The RDS is therefore unsustainable. This hospital has nowhere to expand its facilities to cope with a massively increased population. On top of this there will be increased pollution which will cause further health risks.
-The Local Plan RDS should be refused as it contradicts the Strategic vision of the DC as set out in the Sustainable Community Strategy. ''to make Warwick District a great place to live and work'
see-attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57921
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mr B H Froggatt
The proposed level of housing has not been justified and will lead to urban sprawl. The proposals will lead to significant transport problems which will not be solved by the mitigation proposals as there will still be significant bottlenecks. New schools will be required and the local hospital will not be able to cope. This also needs to be planned in the context of SDC's proposals for development at Lighthorne Heath.
Pollution levels are also a concern and are likely to get worse with implications for health.
Instead the housing numbers should be reassessed and more brownfield land should be used.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57922
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Hatton Parish Council
Local residents attending a public meeting in the village were not in favour of the level of growth proposed. Concerned about:
-change of character of the district, the countryside and quality of life
-impact on infrastructure (hospital, schools)
-loss of green belt and separation between settlements
the Parish Council does not consider the case for this level of growth has been made. A lower figure is more realistic.
see-attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57924
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Graham Pyatt
This level of growth will have a significant impact on levels of air pollution which are already unacceptable. Te public health implications of this have not been considered in the RDS. The increase in traffic will impact on the health and safety of pedestrians and cyclists of all ages. The traffic incfrease will undermine Warwick as a tourist destination and will also undermine the range of town centre shops. Infrastriucture will need to expand with the growing population - this will be difficult for things like the hospital which is constained. It would be better to do nothing. If the Gateway poposals did not go ahead, this would surely mean that less housing was needed in the District. The proposed level of growth does not take account of proposals elsewhere (e.g. Stratford District) and the is not clearly justified (eg what assumptions have been made)
see-attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57925
Received: 22/07/2013
Respondent: Mr & Mrs Anthony & Diana Kelsey
This level of growth will damage the beautiful countryside. Warwick will become more polluted and its historic environment will be damaged, particuallry by extra traffic. The heritage of the area will be ruined.
see-attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57933
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Revd. Jenny Lister
We do not need as many as 12300 new houses. Research carried out locally suggests 5400 houses are required and the 2012 Economic and Demographic Forecasts study had an option where only 4405 homes were needed.
New housing is not needed to provide for jobs as unemployment is very low. and homes and jobs are well balanced in the District.
see-attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57937
Received: 25/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs Ann Mundler
The propsoed level of housing is excessive. 5400 is suggested as realistic to meet local growth. In addition there are many empty homes that could be used. This level of growth will change Warwick's charatcter from a small, hsitoric atractive town to an urban sprawl. The inclusion of green spaces and conservaton has been ignored. the transport system will not cope - roads are already congested and the proposed level of housing will lead to more congestion and air pollution. There should be no conflict of interest in those who own land and those who are involved in the planning process.
see-attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57939
Received: 25/07/2013
Respondent: A Stott
The level of housing proposed will generate more traffic and will result in congestion. It will spoil the character of Warwick and will damage tourism
see-attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57941
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: mr Tony Atkins
12300 is an excessive level of growth. In the region of 5000 is more realistic. This lower level of growth would reduce environmental impacts, congestion, pollution and would take pressure off infrastructure. Schools, community facilities will need to be built - but the timeascales should be more realistic than Chase Meadow. There are real concerns about the capacity of the hospital to cope.
see-attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 58002
Received: 24/07/2013
Respondent: Hampton-on-the-Hill Residents Association
Increase in housing estimates (10,800 to 12,300) is without foundation. Report by Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council suggests the likely requirement is 5,400 homes. WDC should re-consider and take into account the homes required in neighbouring authorities to ensure no duplication of need. Even 5,400 homes will add over 10,000 people and some 15,000 vehicles to the area which will result in unacceptable traffic congestion and consequent air pollution.
If only 5,400 homes required, no development necessary in villages and Green Belt and nature of the district would be unaffected.
WDC should heed concerns of Mr Chris White MP who urged WDC to 'respect the views of local residents.'
Revised Development Strategy
1. The increase in housing estimates from 10,800 to 12,300 is in our view to be without foundation. A detailed and authoritative report produced by Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council suggests the likely requirement is 5,400 homes, less than half the WDC estimate. The WDC need to re-consider their estimate taking into account the homes required in neighbouring authorities (Coventry; Rugby & Stratford) and rationalise the estimate to be sure there is no duplication of need. Even the proposed 5,400 homes will add over 10,000 people and some 15,000 vehicles to the area which will result in unacceptable traffic congestion and consequent air pollution which is reportedly already illegal in Warwick.
2. Within the WDC estimate, is a figure of 100-150 new homes in Hampton Magna. The existing amenities there are already overstretched and to add an additional 300 people - more than double the population of Hampton-on-the-Hill - will mean they will be unable to cope. Also the single road through the two villages is already used as a 'rat run' by speeding traffic to Warwick Parkway Railway Station and to the M40 Motorway. Indeed more and urgent attention needs to be given to improving the existing transport infrastructure to accommodate the current population.
3. With an estimate of 5,400 homes, no development needs to take place in the villages mentioned in the Plan thereby protecting the Green Belt and the Rural nature of the district which makes it the pleasant place in which to live.
4. We urge the WDC to heed the concerns expressed in the letter from our MP. - Mr Chris White - to Cllr Doody dated 24th June 2013 in which he expresses his concern about the housing estimate and urges the WDC to 'respect the views of local residents.'
Sites for Gypsies and Travellers
The need to provide sites for Gypsies & Travellers has long been ignored by the WDC leading to the reason often given by the travelling community for the illegal occupation of some sites. The requirement is for 31 permanent pitches and 12 transit pitches. Now there are twenty proposed sites amounting to 206 pitches in all which seem to have been selected in a somewhat haphazard manner. We realise that only one or two sites will be selected from the twenty suggested but the number and location of so many sites has caused unnecessary alarm among residents. For example, there are six sites within two miles of Hampton-on-the-Hill.
Site GT 13 at Kites Nest Lane has been the subject of an Inquiry with a decision due in October 2013. How can it be considered a viable site? Site GT 20 is the site of Morrison's compound when the A 46 flyover/M 40 modifications were being constructed during 2009/11. On completion of that work it was offered as a possible site for the travelling community and turned down by the WDC as unsuitable; being too distant from the amenities required by them. How then can it now be regarded as a viable site?
Instead of proposing the twenty sites, why not instead consider housing the 31 pitches on the fringes of the other larger proposed housing developments. In this way the travelling community will have convenient access to the amenities they require.
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 58011
Received: 22/07/2013
Respondent: Trustees of the Haseley Settlement
Agent: RPS Planning & Development
Supports the recognition that some greenbelt sites are needed to deliver the allocated housing need. The overall level of 6,630 allocated dwellings is significantly lower than what should be delivered to meet projected increase in population and housing requirements indicated in the SHMA and 2008 ONS projections.
12,300 is insufficient to meet the districts own needs let alone assisting with cross boundary requirements. It is considered that the Council should be working towards the SHMAs higher target of 15,141 dwellings to 2029. Warwicks figures should also be increased above this to take into account cross boundary needs.
Further greenfield and green belt sites should be allocated in sustainable locations to meet the additional housing need. This should be distributed across the district including in the villages.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 58047
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Paul M Whitwood
Population has already increased significantly over the last 20 years which has placed a burden on infrastructure. A further 20% increase is inappropriate and infrastructure will not be able to cope. Traffic congestion is already a problem and will become worse and mitigation proposals will not resolve the problem - particularly as we are constrained by natural barriers such as the rivers and the railway. The infrastructure requirements will make the development financially unviable.
Amenities such as shops and hospital will require the river to be crossed - bridges will become bottlenecks. Hospitals, schools, public trasnport, police etc will also need investment to supoport the new developments. The plan needs to demonstrate how infrastructure can cope and how it can be delivered.
In reality only 5500 houses are required to support natural growth. These excessive amounts of housing will encourage more communiting
see attached