RDS3: The Council's Preferred Option for the broad location of development is to:
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55294
Received: 12/08/2013
Respondent: Heather Nicholls
Supports the Revised Development Strategy. Pleased that the Council has recognised that the exceptional circumstances to develop the Green Belt to the North of Leamington do not exist and that it is vital to preserve the limited green space between Leamington and Kenilworth as there is a risk that the area will merge into the West Midlands conurbation. RDS proposes: new development close to employment opportunities where there is unlimited green space to the south of Leamington; removes the proposal for 2000 houses on the North Leamington Green Belt; proposes better use of brownfield sites and now only 325 further houses are proposed on Greenfield land; improvements to the road network (it is important these are carried out as part of a coordinated plan); the necessary schools and other infra-structure to support the new development; a fair distribution of new housing across the District. Requests the Council keeps the housing requirement to a minimum and if more houses are required following the Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis there is sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.
Dear Sir
LOCAL PLAN REVISED DEVELOPMENT
I write to support the Revised Development Strategy
I am pleased that the Council has recognised that the Exceptional Circumstances to develop the Green Belt to the North of Leamington do not exist and that as a consequence the risks of the Local Plan being found unsound at public enquiry are reduced. It is vital to preserve the limited green space between Leamington and Kenilworth, otherwise there is a real risk that Leamington and Warwick will merge with the West Midlands conurbation.
The Revised Development Strategy proposes that a substantial proportion of the new development is located close to where there are employment opportunities (to the South of Leamington & Warwick) providing an opportunity for people to live close to their place of work. Furthermore there is almost unlimited green space to the south of Leamington where the nearest town is Banbury.
The Revised Development Strategy removes the proposal to build 2000 houses on the North Leamington Green Belt. Through the better use of Brownfield sites only 325 further houses are proposed on Greenfield land than was proposed in the Preferred Options for the Local Plan published last year.
The Revised Development Strategy provides improvements to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. It is important that these road improvements are carried out as part of a coordinated plan. Traffic surveys show that road improvements can cope with the planned new development and that locating the majority of the development South of Leamington will reduce traffic movements, ease congestion and reduce pollution.
The Revised Development Strategy provides for the necessary schools and other infra-structure to support the new development.
The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District. 16% of the new houses will be in the Green Belt North of Leamington, at Thickthorn and Lillington. 15% of the proposed development will be in Warwickshire Villages.
I do not wish to challenge the number of new houses included in the Revised Development Strategy, which I understand has been estimated in accordance with guidance issued by the coalition Government, but I ask the Council to keep the housing requirement to a minimum. Should more houses be required because of the Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis being performed with Coventry City Council, I believe that there is sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55295
Received: 23/07/2013
Respondent: Tony Moon
Good to see that some progress has been made in abandoning the proposed use of green belt land in the Milverton and Blackdown areas. However, the revised draft still contains proposals to use other green belt land and is unacceptable.
Not convinced that the RDS fully addresses the opportunity to regenerate urban areas and utilise brownfield sites. This is even more important if considering the Coventry area. Green Belt land is sacrosanct in this Green and Pleasant Land.
Alternative strategy was proposed last year:
1 Promote competitive town centre environments; 2 Promote vitality of urban areas; 3 Protect green belts around them; 4 Recognise the benefits of best agricultural land; 5 Conserve landscape and scenic beauty; 6 Use brownfield sites first; 7 Only change green belt boundaries under exceptional circumstances; 8 Even then, only consider limited infilling of green belt land; 9 Avoid potential coalescence.
based on the following principles:
1 Accept that this area is already overpopulated; 2 Regenerate urban areas. Much of the housing is decrepit and should be redeveloped with a higher urban population density; 3 Regenerate town centres and depressed urban areas. Replace old housing with modern accommodation; 4 Accept that maximising economic growth and housing is not the priority for Warwick District; 5 Quality of life and the environment are more important; 6 Moderate development is the key; 7 Existing green belt boundaries are sacrosanct.
Dear Sir
Re the Draft Local Plan - An Alternative Proposal
It is very clear that an enormous amount of work has gone into this draft. Nevertheless, it is seriously flawed.
It does not reflect the views of the district residents, who, in the published surveys, advocate only modest development.
The justification appears to be based on an assumption that there will be a substantial growth in population.
This country is already overcrowded and cannot afford the growth predicated.
The economic situation also implies that population growth will be less than in the recent "boom" years. This means that plans based on past population growth statistics are erroneous.
There is a fast developing global food crisis. Britain will have to become more food self-sufficient, which means preserving prime agricultural land.
Even if the local population does grow at your forecast rate of 13%, it is unnecessary to plan housing at the rate of less than 2 persons per property!
I propose that the Council develops an alternative strategy, which is properly based on the following key elements of the NPPF. The current draft does not follow the NPPF.
1 Promote competitive town centre environments
2 Promote vitality of urban areas
3 Protect green belts around them
4 Recognise the benefits of best agricultural land
5 Conserve landscape and scenic beauty
6 Use brown field sites first
7 Only change green belt boundaries under exceptional circumstances
8 Even then, only consider limited infilling of green belt land
9 Avoid potential coalescence
I propose the plan be based on the following principles:
1 Accept that this area is already overpopulated.
2 Regenerate urban areas. Much of the housing is decrepit and should be redeveloped with a higher urban population density.
3 Regenerate town centres and depressed urban areas. Replace old housing with modern accommodation.
4 Accept that maximising economic growth and housing is NOT the priority for Warwick District.
5 Quality of life and the environment are more important.
6 Moderate development is the key.
7 Existing green belt boundaries are sacrosanct.
The plan should be developed strictly within these parameters.
If this means a slower rate of economic development, then that is appropriate for this District.
If this means a slower rate of population growth and housing, then so be it.
It is still possible to encourage new business, reduce unemployment and provide more housing, given a moderate development strategy.
Green belt boundaries are sacrosanct in this 'Green and Pleasant Land'.
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55296
Received: 23/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Simon Lieberman
Location of development:
Agree with the locations identified in the new plan.
Strongly believes that there are no exceptional circumstances for building on green belt land to the north of Leamington as originally proposed and is pleased that this has been recognised in the new plan.
Urges the Council to ensure that this is not sacrificed if the result of the additional joint SHMA with Coventry City Council shows there is a need to build more homes in the District.
I have responded to the consultation using the log in facility on your website but also want to email with additional comments.
I am in agreement with the locations identified in the new plan.
I strongly believe that there are no exceptional circumstances for building on green belt land to the north of Leamington as originally proposed and am pleased that this has been recognised in the new plan. I also urge the Council to ensure that this is not sacrificed if the result of the additional joint SHMA with Coventry City Council shows there is a need to build more homes in the District.
Another issue I wanted to raise is the quality of the new build. Developers are in it for profits and are answerable to their shareholders. This is a fantastic opportunity to build quality, well designed homes achieving high levels of energy efficiency i.e. Passiv housing or close to this level. What say will the public have in this? Previous build in recent years have, to say the least, been dull viz Tournament Fields and Warwick Gates. The developers will say they build what people want but the reality is we have a massive need and they can build what they want knowing it will be sold. This is a blank canvas and an opportunity to make a real statement and urge you to ensure high quality.
Will there also be land made available for self build as this will ensure people are able to design their own homes. Austria is a prime example of success doing this where quality of build is years ahead of the UK and 80% of homes are self build (info on this available on BBC website at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14125196).
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55297
Received: 23/07/2013
Respondent: Mr John Evans
Objects in the strongest terms to the RDS:
* The proposed development to the south of Warwick and Harbury Lane is grossly disproportionate to the housing needs of the district.
* There is no evidence that the majority of people moving to this area will find employment locally and will be car commuters placing intolerable strain on the road network.
* If new houses are needed they should be spread through the area with priority for brownfield sites and [located] to the north or the district with access to the West Midland region.
* Warwick District already has a high proportion of built up areas and development proposed will result in the loss of agricultural land and destroy the character of the area.
Dear Ms Darke
I wish to object to the draft local plan in the strongest terms. The proposed development to the south of Warwick and Harbury Lane is grossly disproportionate to the housing needs of the district.. There is no evidence that the majority of people moving to this area will find employment locally and the majority will be car commuters placing intolerable strain on the road network. If new houses are needed they should be spread through the area with a priority for brownfield sites and to the north or the district with access to the West Midland region. Warwick District already has a high proportion of built up areas and development proposed will result in the loss of agricultural land and destroy the character of the area. It is also undemocratic as local people have previously made it very clear that building in this area is unacceptable.
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55302
Received: 26/07/2013
Respondent: Alison Kelly
Serious concerns over the potential impact upon health and wellbeing. Will have serious health impacts upon local residents. Local roads which are already in excess of capacity will be unable to support the additional traffic which will result in additional pollution and further decline in already poor air quality.
May result in an increase in respiratory conditions.
As more traffic is introduced even more will become stationary and slow moving causing an increased concentration of pollution in the Myton area.
Extremely concerned about the potential health impact upon the residents of Warwick and surrounding areas. Air Quality Action plan (2008) shows poor air quality, worst area being Warwick town centre. Seeks confirmation that the issue of air quality is being thoroughly investigated as an urgent matter of Public Health.
Convinced that this Plan will be opposed in its entirety if it is found to be detrimental to the health of residents. Would welcome assurance that this will be done in good time so that the results can be published for local residents to consider well in advance of any decision on the Local Plan itself.
Dear Dr Linnane
LOCAL PLAN - REVISED DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
I am writing to you, as Director of Public Health with reference to serious concerns the residents of Myton have over the potential impact upon our health and wellbeing under Warwick District Council's preferred option within the New Local Plan, for a large concentration of circa 3420 dwellings on the greenfield land to the south of Warwick between Myton Road and Europa Way, presently an Area of Restraint, and the joining up with Warwick Gates.
Such a development would have serious health impacts upon local residents, in view of the conservative estimate of 6000+ additional vehicles introduced to the local roads which are, as you will be aware, already in excess of capacity and will be unable to support this additional traffic which will result in additional pollution and further decline in already poor air quality.
This may result in an increase in respiratory conditions such as asthma, chronic lung diseases and of course a contribution factor to lung cancer as implicated in recent reports. As more traffic is introduced even more will become stationary and slow moving causing an increased concentration of pollution in the Myton area.
I am extremely concerned about the potential health impact upon the residents of Warwick and surrounding areas.
The 2008 Air Quality Action plan for Warwick district clearly shows a shocking picture of the poor air quality, with the very worst area being Warwick town centre, Warwick being the most developed area of the district over the past 20 years or so.
Of particular interest is the comment on page 17:
Policy ER.2: Environmental Impact of Development
"The environmental impact of all proposed development on ...., air, ..... must be thoroughly assessed, and measures secured to mitigate adverse environmental effects to acceptable levels. Local plans should include policies to ensure this takes place. The impact of existing sources of environmental pollution on the occupants of any proposed new development should also be taken into account. All assessment of environmental impact should take account of, and where possible seek to reduce, uncertainty over the implications of the proposed development. If adverse impacts cannot be mitigated to acceptable levels, development will not be permitted."
I therefore seek urgent confirmation that the issue of air quality is being thoroughly investigated as an urgent matter of Public Health.
I am convinced that this Local Plan in it's current form will be opposed in it's entirety if it is found to be detrimental to the health of residents.
I would also welcome your assurance, as the Director of Public Health, that this will be done in good time so that the results can be published for local residents to consider well in advance of any decision on the Local Plan itself.
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55305
Received: 26/07/2013
Respondent: NFU
NFU represents over 850 farming businesses located throughout the county of Warwickshire. Food security is a key concern. The challenge is to increase productivity, maximise output, minimise inputs, achieve environmental sustainability and adapt to a changing climate.
The growth targets in the RDS will lead to large new developments on the edge of existing urban areas and in the villages within the District, placing considerable additional demands on the natural resources of the area. Urge the council to thoroughly investigate the impacts on surrounding agricultural land to ensure that adequate water resources and drainage capacity is available to cope with the new demands placed on the districts natural infrastructure.
Sites should not be allocated for residential development if they are found to be in close proximity to an existing livestock unit where there will be sources of noise and odour. Keen to ensure that development in the countryside does not result in conflict between new residents and existing farm businesses.
Where agricultural land is identified for development, consideration should be given to prioritising sites on lower grade land (grades 3 & 4) rather than the best and most versatile land (grades 1 & 2) which is highly valued for food production.
The NFU is a professional body which represents the interests of approximately 75% of all farmers and growers and has 850 businesses in membership in Warwickshire. We have compiled the following comments in response to your consultation on your Gypsy and Traveller Site Options Consultation. Our views are on behalf of the farming and land management sector in general and follow discussion with local members. A group of NFU members recently met with Chris Elliott, Chief Executive of WDC together with officers from the Planning
and Economy teams and discussed the consultation paper.
We have a number of concerns relating to the consultation paper. We do make our comments in the knowledge that the Council is under a duty to assess the need for Gypsy and Traveller sites in its area, and is under pressure to plan for sites over a reasonable timescale.
Our primary concern is that the site selection process has been undertaken without a thorough and well-reasoned assessment, we are seriously concerned about the level of engagement that has been undertaken with the owners who's sites have been identified as potentially suitable locations. We are pleased to note that the Council would only resort to compulsory purchase as a last resort and very much hope that a solution can be identified that avoids this approach.
The document does not include enough information on the basis for selection on of each of the sites. For example we would expect that there should be information on access to local facilities such as GPs, health services and schools for each of the sites shown in the document. We would also like to see information on how these sites would affect local infrastructure and the nearest settled community.
The local farming community must be fully consulted on sites and given access to information on site selection. It must be remembered that farmers are running businesses like other commercial property owners on their land and that they also have long term plans for the future. Sites must be selected so that they take consideration of the practical aspects of running a farm business for example by avoiding sites with close proximity to livestock units. They should avoid using high quality agricultural land.
The sites are an intensive residential use, and there are legitimate fears that it would give rise to problems of the sort all too frequently experienced in peri-urban locations where high-density residential uses abut farmland. Policy H Para 23 of Planning Policy for Travellers Sites seeks to strictly limit new sites in open countryside away from existing settlements.
We would also like to know what the Council has done to assist Gypsy and Traveller families to find land in order to provide their own sites. Self-provided provision on private sites could be an appropriate way of providing sites, provided the necessary planning permissions are sought before the sites are occupied.
Can you also outline what steps were taken to ensure that the GTAA was not carried out in isolation and had regard for the strategies of neighbouring authorities? Has the GTAA had regard for the needs of people who travel between neighbouring authorities and have steps been taken to ensure that their needs are not catered for twice. We would also like to ask whether all the gypsy and travellers in the district are only prepared to live in caravans. Did the GTAA (carried out last year) identify whether there was a need for any other accommodation types in the area?
I hope that you find our contribution to the consultation useful. If you require further information or clarification of any of the points raised in the response please do not hesitate to contact me at the
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55321
Received: 21/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs Julie Tidd
Supports the Revised Development Strategy. Supports the absence of development on the North Leamington Green Belt around Milverton and Blackdown as this land meets the 5 key roles of Green Belt and is an excellent and well used cultural and exercise related resource. If the Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis identifies an increase in the number of houses above those currently proposed, there is sufficient non-Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development. Proposals represent a fair distribution of housing. Commuting, pollution and infrastructure can be minimised as most of the new development is located close to where employment opportunities already exist and also maximises the opportunity for people to live close to their place of work, improving quality of life. There is ample space to build to the south of Leamington and focussing in one broad area ensures adequate public services can be provided and developed to meet the needs of the new population. The transport assessment clearly shows that development in the North would generate more traffic congestion in the district.
RDS provides for improvement to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. It is possible that mitigation methods may need to be employed in the Southern areas to reduce pollution and congestion but the work needed to do this would be less than that needed for the north. Putting the country park in the South next to the existing houses, with new housing beyond it, would make the green-park more accessible, crossed by cycle-ways and acting as a green-lung to reduce air pollution. The exclusion of development in the North Leamington green belt enables the plan to comply with the NPPF, any attempt to reintroduce this area would be opposed as no exceptional circumstances exist.
Dear Sirs,
I write to support the New Local Plan Revised Development Strategy; in particular I support the absence of development on the North Leamington Green Belt around Milverton and Blackdown.
It is essential that the plan does not return to a scheme involving any development on the North Leamington Green Belt. The Green Belt in this area meets the 5 key roles of Green Belt and is an excellent and well used cultural and exercise related resource. Development in Kenilworth, Baginton and Lillington already take land from this essential Green Belt and further development on it would not be sustainable. It must not be permitted.
I would also like to make the following points:
1. A Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis is currently being performed with Coventry City Council. If this review identifies that it is necessary to increase the number of houses above those currently proposed I believe that there is sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.
2. The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District. It is fair because there are still plans for new houses in the Green Belt at Thickthorn and Lillington as well as proposed development in villages.
3. The Revised Development Strategy proposes that most of the new development is located close to where employment opportunities already exist (e.g. industrial parks to the South of Leamington & Warwick) this provides an opportunity for people to live close to their place of work, reducing or eliminating commuting for many people, reducing pollution & improving quality of life. Furthermore there is ample space to build to the south of Leamington as the next nearest town is Banbury.
4. Focusing development in the South, in one broad area, ensures adequate public services can be provided and developed to meet the needs of the new population. These services can be designed to meet the exact needs of that new population and planned within easy walking and cycling distance, minimising traffic congestion. If development were to be more spread across the district public services would have to be developed in an inferior and unacceptable "make-do-and-mend" fashion which would provide poorer levels of service to both existing and new residents in those areas.
5. The Revised Development Strategy provides for improvement to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. The transport assessment clearly shows that development in the North would generate more traffic congestion in the district as it would have forced people to travel south to employment land, shopping (e.g. supermarkets) and the M40. Loss of vital Green Belt recreation land would also have resulted in more people travelling by car for recreation.
6. It is possible that mitigation methods may need to be employed in the Southern areas to reduce pollution and congestion but the work needed to do this would be less than for development in the North. For instance putting the country park in the South next to the existing houses, with new housing beyond it, would make the green-park more accessible. It could be crossed by cycle-ways and would act as a green-lung to reduce air pollution.
In conclusion the exclusion of development in the North Leamington Green Belt enables the plan to comply with the NPPF. Any attempt to re-introduce development in the North Leamington Green Belt would be unacceptable and be bitterly opposed as no exceptional circumstances exist; the land is a vital and immeasurable resource for the future of the district and is critical to its future sustainability.
Development in the South reduces traffic congestion and reduces air pollution, it enables better provision of public services and other facilities with better access to the employment hubs in the South.
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55324
Received: 27/06/2013
Respondent: Mr Stephen McFadden
To say that "the Plan" is grossly unfair to residents of South Leamington and Warwick is an understatement. Sanctioning the bulk of such a massive development all in one area of the town represents a very ill thought out plan, and one that will create chaos, not just in southern areas of Leamington/Warwick, but across the district.
An alternative plan would distribute housing evenly around the district. If we are to have such a number of new homes, and spread the burden thinly across the district, it could also benefit smaller local building firms rather than large national developers, and this would help the local economy. Evenly distributing the housing around both Leamington and Warwick might mean that fewer significant road infrastructure changes would be needed, thus saving the Council money in these times of economic austerity.
Given the volume of housing that is proposed, another option would be to create a whole "new town" outside Leamington and Warwick in open countryside. This could be built from scratch to include schools, parkland, shops and other infrastructure etc, making it largely independent. This would impact far fewer existing residents, and require fewer significant infrastructure changes in the main Leamington/Warwick district.
Mr Elliott,
I write in relation to the Local Plan which is currently undergoing public consultation.
To say that "the Plan" is grossly unfair to residents of South Leamington and Warwick is an understatement. Sanctioning the bulk of such a massive development all in one area of the town represents a very ill thought out plan, and one that will create chaos, not just in southern areas of Leamington/Warwick, but across the district.
I have heard of an alternative plan that would distribute housing evenly around the district, and thus mitigating many of the disastrous outcomes of concentrating the developments where they are currently proposed. Surely this represents a fantastic alternative, if we are to have such a number of new homes, and spreads the burden thinly across the district. Such a plan could also benefit smaller local building firms rather than large national developers, and this would help the local economy.
Evenly distributing the housing around both Leamington and Warwick might mean that fewer significant road infrastructure changes would be needed, thus saving the Council money in these times of economic austerity.
Given the volume of housing that is proposed, another option would be to create a whole "new town" outside Leamington and Warwick in open countryside. This could be built from scratch to include schools, parkland, shops and other infrastructure etc, making it largely independent. Again, this would impact far fewer existing residents, and require fewer significant infrastructure changes in the main Leamington/Warwick district.
On the subject of public consultation - the consultation period has recently been extended for the Woodside Farm development in Whitnash. However, 3 other significant developments are proposed nearby:
- Hawkes Farm, North of Harbury Lane, Heathcote (Ref W/13/0607)
- South of Harbury Lane (ref W/13/0606)
- West of Europa Way (ref W/13/0603)
I believe that local residents have not had long enough to digest what the implications of these might be, and would request that a similar extension of the consultation period is granted for these applications.
I am keen to gauge your thoughts on these matters.
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55326
Received: 31/07/2013
Respondent: Mapeley Gamma Aquisition
Agent: Turley Associates
Supports the greater focus placed on the redevelopment of brownfield land to meet the identified housing target. In this respect, it is noted that the Employment Land Review 2013 has identified poor quality employment sites which may be suitable for housing development and acknowledges that there has been a lack of speculative development activity in the district for over 12 years (from well before the start of the 2008 recession). If take up of employment land continues at a similar rate as it has over the last 5 years (circa 16 hectares take up in total) the existing supply of available employment land (48.5 hectares) has capacity to provide approximately 15 years' worth of supply.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55329
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Hilary and Dale Fittes
The air quality issue is of great concern. Air quality in Warwick and Leamington is already above the legal limit. The Council is required to improve air quality. The scale of planned houses will make it worse. Notes that Stratford Council have their own plans for even more houses south of Warwick - has this development been taken into consideration?
There is no doubt that the plans will ruin the visual look of Warwick forever. The increase of traffic and people will drive visitors away. We need to conserve the beauty of Warwick, not plan to destroy it.
New Local Plan does not have any policy to protect our parks. When this is adopted there will be no protection for our parks from developers - only NPPF which is insufficient. This could mean that developments could go ahead on exceptional circumstances (which was the basis for the Gateway application).
Having looked at the Local Plan and attended recent public meetings I am writing to you to indicate my many concerns and total dissatisfaction with the revised development strategy for the Local Plan.
Air Quality
In particular, the air quality issue is of great concern. I understand that air quality in Warwick and Leamington is already above the legal limit. The District Council is required to improve air quality. The scale of planned houses will make it worse. I also note that Stratford Council have their own plans for even more houses south of Warwick, has this development been taken into consideration?
Transport
I believe the strategy is car based and will push even more congestion onto the existing road network. It is obvious that building a dual carriageway to the river Avon bridge will just bring increased traffic to a halt. Also the current bridge was not built to take the potential amount of traffic. Parking in Warwick is already difficult enough, this plan will make matters far worse. As for traffic at the Morrisons roundabout on the Myton Road, I shudder to think of the implications there. The proposed removal of parking in Smith Street would adversely effect the viability of the shops in this street.
Projected Housing
The projected 12,300 homes is extremely high and I understand that less than half that number would meet local needs. Also, there are a large number of empty houses in Warwick and Leamington and these should be used to house people instead of just building more new ones.
Could we not build on brownfield and infill sites already within each towns infrastructure.
Should there not be a slower phasing in of housing based on estimated local demand releasing land as demand grows rather than an unjustified estimate so far into the future?
Historic Environment
There is no doubt that the plans will ruin the visual look of Warwick forever. The increase of traffic and people will drive visitors away. We need to conserve the beauty of Warwick, not plan to destroy it.
Parks
I understand that the new Local Plan does not have any policy to protect our parks. When this is adopted there will be no protection for our parks from developers - only National Planning Policy Framework which I believe is insufficient. This could mean that developments could go ahead on exceptional circumstances (which was the basis for the Gateway application).
Funding
With the current and projected Government cutbacks, will Warwick District Council have the funding to expand the needed infrastructure to support 12,300 homes?
National Planning Policy
From the meetings I attended it appears that a realistic forecast of need would mean that we already have the required five year supply of sites when you balance housing with employment growth forecasts vs the housing market. Why has this not been taken into consideration in the local plan?
Gypsy Sites
They seem to have all been crammed into the same area. Could they not have been spread out more fairly within the area?
Consultation Process
I was most concerned to hear at the meeting that these plans had been pushed through by councillors who do not live in the area and that politics were possibly involved in the decision making?
I would be most grateful if you would note my constructive dissatisfaction which is based on my fear that our beautiful town of Warwick will be destroyed in the future.
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55333
Received: 28/07/2013
Respondent: Ram Karki
Supports the Revised Development Strategy. Supports the absence of development on the North Leamington Green Belt around Milverton and Blackdown as this land meets the 5 key roles of Green Belt and is an excellent and well used cultural and exercise related resource. If the Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis identifies an increase in the number of houses above those currently proposed, there is sufficient non-Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development. Proposals represent a fair distribution of housing. Commuting, pollution and infrastructure can be minimised as most of the new development is located close to where employment opportunities already exist and also maximises the opportunity for people to live close to their place of work, improving quality of life. There is ample space to build to the south of Leamington and focussing in one broad area ensures adequate public services can be provided and developed to meet the needs of the new population. The transport assessment clearly shows that development in the North would generate more traffic congestion in the district.
RDS provides for improvement to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. It is possible that mitigation methods may need to be employed in the Southern areas to reduce pollution and congestion but the work needed to do this would be less than that needed for the north. Putting the country park in the South next to the existing houses, with new housing beyond it, would make the green-park more accessible, crossed by cycle-ways and acting as a green-lung to reduce air pollution. The exclusion of development in the North Leamington green belt enables the plan to comply with the NPPF, any attempt to reintroduce this area would be opposed as no exceptional circumstances exist.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55335
Received: 28/07/2013
Respondent: Sharba Homes
Agent: PJPlanning
The RDS will fundamentally conflict with the NPPF's approach [set out in paras 83 and 84 in respect to the Green Belt] since it does not channel development to the type of areas set out in paragraph 84 of the NPPF.
On the contrary, it channels over half of the 'village' development toward 'washed over' villages in green belt.
It does this:
* Despite accepting that more work needs to be done to assess the capacity of villages to accept development
* Ignoring the capacity of the 'other villages' to accept development. This is not an insignificant capacity. For example, if each of the 'other' settlements was to receive a single additional dwelling each year (which is perfectly possible), then that could account for almost 400 dwellings over the plan period.
It follows that the location of development in Green Belt has been considered as closer to a first, rather than a last, resort and that the necessary exceptional circumstances have not yet been demonstrated.
Recent announcements by the Secretary of State have made it abundantly clear that a simple need for additional housing cannot in itself provide the exceptional circumstances necessary to justify amendments to the Green Belt boundary, and it is very clear that this Strategy takes this approach.
Since the consequence of the local planning authority's policy approach would involve significant intrusions into the green belt around a number of 'washed over' villages, the minimum necessary evidence should be a clear demonstration that it is impossible to meet the housing requirements within or adjacent to existing settlements.
This includes Primary and Secondary Service Villages outside green belt as well as the main urban areas, since all of these have been identified as 'sustainable' locations.
This should be allied to a full green belt review to demonstrate, for example that the extension of 'washed over' villages is a more sustainable approach to the use of Green Belt land.
Until all of these matters are demonstrated, the Strategy is unsound:
* It has not been demonstrated to be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence.
It is not, therefore, 'justified'.
* It does not enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework - in this case, specifically, sustainable development and Green Belt policies.
*It is not, therefore, consistent with national policy
Resolving Objection:
The next version of the Strategy should promote a pattern and rate of development that:
* Is based on the full objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area
* Fully assesses the capacity of locations outside Green Belt to enable the creation of sustainable development towards meeting that need
* Following a full review of Green Belt, identifies sustainable locations in the green belt sufficient to meet any shortfall in capacity.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55339
Received: 26/07/2013
Respondent: Richard Knight
The costs to the immediate locality are obvious, loss of greenbelt, greater traffic congestion particularly at peak periods, greater demand on local services such as hospitals and transport infrastructure. The area needs more jobs creating that can benefit the local economy. It should be noted that serviced based jobs do not meet that criteria.
The proposal does not take into account the shift in commercial demands. There are many commercial properties in the centre of Leamington & Warwick that lay empty as retailers shift their focus to out of town shopping centres. The plan should look at converting existing commercial premises to residential, avoiding ghost localities within towns. This approach will stop the unnecessary consumption of green field sites and utilise existing brownfield developments.
Concentrating development to the south of Warwick in preference to the more distributed pattern contained in previous plans is very poor planning and does not take into account other proposed developments such as Stratford District Council proposal of up to 4800 houses at Gaydon/Lighthorne. This will mean a total of over 8,000 new houses / 20,000 new residents living along the Gaydon to Warwick/Leamington corridor.
The areas designated for planning and major junctions from the M40 already suffer from significant traffic bottlenecks at peak periods, and the proposed developments will only exacerbate the traffic congestion.
Based on known traffic patterns, it is apparent that the proposed park and ride will be in the incorrect location.
The significant increase in air pollution arising from the additional traffic will put the health of young children further at risk. Many children attending the schools along Myton Road are already exposed to significant levels of pollutants from stationary traffic.
Protecting Warwick Castle's status as the finest castle in the UK is crucial to the town's future. Looking south over the ramparts at another 3,000 new homes will be contrary to recommendations of the Council's landscape and environmental consultants. The historic nature of the town will be irreversibly damaged. More consideration should be taken of their advice and to the preservation of the landscaped setting of the approaches to the south of Warwick.
The Bridge End area of Warwick is susceptible to flooding due to inadequate drainage, with water running down to/up from the drains. Further development will remove natural drainage and potentially increase the problem and frequency.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55340
Received: 26/07/2013
Respondent: Warwickshire Wildlife Trust
RDS outlines that up to 1,000 homes will be distributed amongst primary and secondary villages in the district. The baseline ecological data for each of these listed villages should therefore be reviewed and updated to ensure that, in accordance with NPPF, any development that comes forward in these areas is justified and informed by up-to-date information about the local natural environment.
Recommend that the Stratford-on-Avon District Ecological and Geological Study of Local Service Village 2012 is used as a model to update the ecological baseline.
The following sites listed in the RDS are inclusive of, or are adjacent to, a statutory Local Nature Reserve (LNR) or a county important Local Wildlife Site (LWS): Myton Garden Suburb; South of Gallows Hill; Lower Heathcote Farm; Former Severn Trent Works; Grove Farm; East of Whitnash; Land at Thickthorn
The value/importance of these features, and the level of protection assigned to them in the NPPF must be upheld in the RDS so that the preferred site allocations can be achieved without any net loss or degradation of these county important assets.
The following sites in the RDS are inclusive of, or are adjacent to, a potential Local Wildlife Site (pLWS):
Site Allocation Potential Local Wildlife Site South of Gallows Hill; East of Whitnash; Golf Lane/ Fieldgate Lane. Any site listed as a pLWS should therefore be treated as a LWS in the RDS unless survey and assessment against the standardised criteria suggests otherwise.
All preferred sites within the RDS are likely to include habitats and species of principal importance for nature conservation, as listed under section 41 of the NERC Act. The local authority should have regard to the potential presence of priority habitats and species within all preferred site allocations. Current revision of the Warwick District Local Plan is not inclusive of a specific biodiversity policy at this stage.
Include robust policies to ensure that all site allocations make a proportional contribution to the delivery of biodiversity enhancement and green infrastructure in the district, linked to the identified green infrastructure projects and the aims and objectives of the Sub-regional GI document.
Adopt the sub-regional GI strategy and associated Biodiversity Offsetting metrics.
Identify the Princethorpe Woodlands as a Biodiversity Opportunity Area within the local plan to demonstrate that the local authority has adopted a landscape scale approach to deliver biodiversity enhancements in the district.
see attached
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55343
Received: 23/07/2013
Respondent: Alfonso Pacitti
Supports the Revised Development Strategy. Supports the absence of development on the North Leamington Green Belt around Milverton and Blackdown as this land meets the 5 key roles of Green Belt and is an excellent and well used cultural and exercise related resource. If the Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis identifies an increase in the number of houses above those currently proposed, there is sufficient non-Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development. Proposals represent a fair distribution of housing. Commuting, pollution and infrastructure can be minimised as most of the new development is located close to where employment opportunities already exist and also maximises the opportunity for people to live close to their place of work, improving quality of life. There is ample space to build to the south of Leamington and focussing in one broad area ensures adequate public services can be provided and developed to meet the needs of the new population. The transport assessment clearly shows that development in the North would generate more traffic congestion in the district.
RDS provides for improvement to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. It is possible that mitigation methods may need to be employed in the Southern areas to reduce pollution and congestion but the work needed to do this would be less than that needed for the north. Putting the country park in the South next to the existing houses, with new housing beyond it, would make the green-park more accessible, crossed by cycle-ways and acting as a green-lung to reduce air pollution. The exclusion of development in the North Leamington green belt enables the plan to comply with the NPPF, any attempt to reintroduce this area would be opposed as no exceptional circumstances exist.
see attached
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55344
Received: 30/07/2013
Respondent: Rowington Parish Council
Strong support for the retention of open spaces (Green Belt and Special Landscape Areas). Difficult to comment further without information regarding potential changes to green belt boundaries.
* Strong support for the retention of open spaces (Green Belt and Special Landscape Areas) Difficult to comment further without information regarding potential changes to green belt boundaries.
* Clarification of the area referred to as "Rowington" is still required. Reference is made to the settlement of Kingswood as "Lapworth" when in fact a large part of Kingswod is within Rowington Parish
* The data gathering exercise for the Rowington Parish Design Statement provides a strong evidence base of the need for small infill developments of residential units for the young and elderly alike, which would allow a balanced community to be maintained in the rural areas. This appears to have been largely ignored within the Development Strategy at this point.
* It seems that rather than spread the burden of new development across Warwick District, much of the proposed new housing is in the form of concentrated and large scale developments. As mentioned above, the proposals have ignored the needs of the small rural villages in favour of the big developers who are only interested in such large scale developments.
Community Infrastructure Levy Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
* The overriding concern of the Parish Council is that any CIL is levied on a particular site and remains attached to that site area i.e. no levy should be consumed within a central "pot"
* Because CIL is intended to be mandatory, smaller developments such as those likely to occur in the rural settlements, may be unable to bear the cost of this levy and developers will not therefore be encouraged to come forward.
Sustainability Appraisal and Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
* Need further clarification on the definition of a "pitch" and how this is to be utilised i.e. single or multiple occupancy per pitch? Not clear what is meant by a "pitch".
* Clear guidelines on the numbers of pitches per site and a preference for permanent as opposed to itinerant occupancy. Permanent occupancy may encourage occupants to become part of the community and therefore develop a sense of inclusion and ultimately, responsibility.
* Will the proposed sites/occupiers incur rental charges etc? As in the case of council accommodation provided by WDC. We believe that the occupiers should be subject to rental and other charges and would like to know how such charges will be collected by WDC.
* How will these sites be administered i.e. will the sites be self managing or managed by
WDC? We are concerned that the sites will certainly need to incur costs associated with hygiene, waste disposal, school transport and maintenance alongside overall supervision/administration costs if they are to remain usable. These costs are running costs as opposed to capital infrastructure costs mentioned below.
* What are the likely costs of the provision of necessary infrastructure for these sites and how will such infrastructure be funded.
* Following the creation of approved sites, how will the settlement of travellers or gypsies of the type that are "unpredictable economic migrants" be handled in the event of their occupation of sites over and above the official sites provided?
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55345
Received: 22/07/2013
Respondent: G Ralph
Supports the Revised Development Strategy. Supports the absence of development on the North Leamington Green Belt around Milverton and Blackdown as this land meets the 5 key roles of Green Belt and is an excellent and well used cultural and exercise related resource. If the Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis identifies an increase in the number of houses above those currently proposed, there is sufficient non-Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development. Proposals represent a fair distribution of housing. Commuting, pollution and infrastructure can be minimised as most of the new development is located close to where employment opportunities already exist and also maximises the opportunity for people to live close to their place of work, improving quality of life. There is ample space to build to the south of Leamington and focussing in one broad area ensures adequate public services can be provided and developed to meet the needs of the new population. The transport assessment clearly shows that development in the North would generate more traffic congestion in the district.
RDS provides for improvement to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. It is possible that mitigation methods may need to be employed in the Southern areas to reduce pollution and congestion but the work needed to do this would be less than that needed for the north. Putting the country park in the South next to the existing houses, with new housing beyond it, would make the green-park more accessible, crossed by cycle-ways and acting as a green-lung to reduce air pollution. The exclusion of development in the North Leamington green belt enables the plan to comply with the NPPF, any attempt to reintroduce this area would be opposed as no exceptional circumstances exist.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55350
Received: 31/07/2013
Respondent: Dominique Benedetti
Objects to the Revised Development Strategy 2013.
Dear Sir
I would like you to be aware that I want to OBJECT to the New Local Plan Revised Development Strategy 2013.
Thank you
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55369
Received: 27/07/2013
Respondent: Miss Laura Ghiggino
Supports the Revised Development Strategy. Supports the absence of development on the North Leamington Green Belt around Milverton and Blackdown as this land meets the 5 key roles of Green Belt and is an excellent and well used cultural and exercise related resource. If the Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis identifies an increase in the number of houses above those currently proposed, there is sufficient non-Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development. Proposals represent a fair distribution of housing. Commuting, pollution and infrastructure can be minimised as most of the new development is located close to where employment opportunities already exist and also maximises the opportunity for people to live close to their place of work, improving quality of life. There is ample space to build to the south of Leamington and focussing in one broad area ensures adequate public services can be provided and developed to meet the needs of the new population. The transport assessment clearly shows that development in the North would generate more traffic congestion in the district.
RDS provides for improvement to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. It is possible that mitigation methods may need to be employed in the Southern areas to reduce pollution and congestion but the work needed to do this would be less than that needed for the north. Putting the country park in the South next to the existing houses, with new housing beyond it, would make the green-park more accessible, crossed by cycle-ways and acting as a green-lung to reduce air pollution. The exclusion of development in the North Leamington green belt enables the plan to comply with the NPPF, any attempt to reintroduce this area would be opposed as no exceptional circumstances exist.
Building on green land on such a large scale especially near the River Avon could have increased and disastrous effects on flooding on the proposed development and possibly existing houses- and will make selling the houses very difficult.
see attached
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55373
Received: 22/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs K Ralph
Supports the Revised Development Strategy. Pleased that the Council has recognised that the exceptional circumstances to develop the Green Belt to the North of Leamington do not exist and that it is vital to preserve the limited green space between Leamington and Kenilworth as there is a risk that the area will merge into the West Midlands conurbation. RDS proposes: new development close to employment opportunities where there is unlimited green space to the south of Leamington; removes the proposal for 2000 houses on the North Leamington Green Belt; proposes better use of brownfield sites and now only 325 further houses are proposed on Greenfield land; improvements to the road network (it is important these are carried out as part of a coordinated plan); the necessary schools and other infra-structure to support the new development; a fair distribution of new housing across the District. Requests the Council keeps the housing requirement to a minimum and if more houses are required following the Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis there is sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55375
Received: 12/08/2013
Respondent: Mr Stuart Oldham
Strategy seeks to concentrate the majority of an excessive amount of growth into one particular small part of the District i.e. urban fringe areas around the south west of Leamington. Shoehorning this amount of growth into such a location would result in unsustainable over development with all its associated problems including traffic congestion, pollution and overloaded local infrastructure and services, and which cannot be adequately mitigated.
It would further increase the existing unbalanced pattern of development across the District between the 'urbanised south' (20%) and 'rural north' (80%) and as such, cannot be justified, certainly not on the grounds of seeking to protect existing Green Belt boundaries.
The 2012 Preferred Options level and locations of growth, whilst not perfect, comprises a reasonably robust, sustainable and balanced basis for future development for the District. Within this document, the Council identified the advantages to locating some development in the Green Belt to the north of Leamington and all four options considered for housing locations, (para. 7.38, Table 3) have significant allocations in this part of the District.
Regrettably and misguidedly, the RDS now marks a significant step backwards compared to the 2012 proposals. Any planning benefits arising from the non development of the relatively small parts of the Green Belt north of Leamington are outweighed by the major planning disbenefits of over development to the south of the town, resulting in a net reduction in planning and environmental benefits across the whole District.
The RDS does not constitute a basis for a 'sound' Local Plan as defined by the NPPF para 182.
Since the PO consultation the Council has radically revised its proposals for the broad location of new development. It has switched major housing allocations away from Green Belt land to the north of Leamington and concentrated most housing developments on locations to the south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash, outside of the Green Belt.
The Council claims that this is due to the consultation responses opposing Green Belt development, but also as a result of so-called 'new information' on the ability of the land to the south of Warwick / Leamington / Whitnash, and brownfield land, to accommodate new development.
It seems clear that the Council has bowed to the well articulated and forceful objections of the North Leamington NIMBY lobby, with the 'sanctity' of the Green Belt providing a convenient 'escape clause' for both parties, but this does not make for sound planning, in fact just the opposite!
It is important to note that Chapter 9 of the NPPF makes it clear that the Green Belt, which covers the northern 80% of the District, does not represent an insuperable barrier to development. According to the Council 'exceptional circumstances' can include the need to accommodate housing and employment growth to meet the needs of a community where there are insufficient suitable and available sites outside of the Green Belt. The Preferred Options take on board the National guidance in its Green Belt policy (Section 16), which supports the allocation of housing and employment development on Green Belt land with associated boundary adjustments. The Council identified advantages to locating development to the north of Leamington and also highlight some of the negative consequences of a large amount of development to the south of Warwick/ Leamington/Whitnash. These are a key part of the Council's own case for justifying their 2012 Preferred Options and for rejecting what are now their 2013 RDS proposals!
Moreover, it is clear that locally the RDS proposals would: greatly exacerbate existing traffic congestion not just in Leamington but also in Warwick, a town of national historic and cultural importance, both south and north of the river; degrade environmental amenity, including air quality; increase atmospheric pollution; place unsustainable pressure on local services and infrastructure.
That all of this amounts to over development is clear from the fact that the Council feels the need to attempt to put in place various 'mitigation measures', notably relating to transport and traffic management via the County Council.
The RDS proposal also conflicts with the environmental principles of the Council's Local Plan Strategy (RDS Appendix 1, para.3.5) relating to key elements of Sustainable Development: 'Distributing development across the District. Avoiding coalescence. Ensuring new development is based on the principles of Sustainable Garden Towns, Suburbs and Villages. Protecting biodiversity, high quality landscapes, heritage assets and other areas of significance.' Thus it can be seen to be internally inconsistent in policy terms.
Many District residents have strong objections to the RDS proposals; the RDS can also be seen to fail to comply with the NPPF (para. 155).
In summary then I object to the RDS proposed broad locations of growth on the following grounds: The justification, based largely on protecting the Green Belt, for the significant changes from the 2012 Preferred Options, is inadequate. The Council itself made a good case for rejecting this strategy in making its case for the Preferred Options! They would result in an unbalanced and unsustainable pattern of development between the north and south of the District, and a net reduction in planning and environmental benefits compared to the 2012 Preferred Options. They would result in overdevelopment of urban fringe areas around the south west of Leamington, with consequential major adverse environmental and transportation impacts for both Leamington and Warwick that cannot be adequately mitigated. The proposals are clearly contrary to some of the Council's own key planning and environmental policies and principles, and also to para. 155 of the NPPF.
see attached
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55376
Received: 22/07/2013
Respondent: Pierpaola Ghiggino
Supports the Revised Development Strategy. Supports the absence of development on the North Leamington Green Belt around Milverton and Blackdown as this land meets the 5 key roles of Green Belt and is an excellent and well used cultural and exercise related resource. If the Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis identifies an increase in the number of houses above those currently proposed, there is sufficient non-Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development. Proposals represent a fair distribution of housing. Commuting, pollution and infrastructure can be minimised as most of the new development is located close to where employment opportunities already exist and also maximises the opportunity for people to live close to their place of work, improving quality of life. There is ample space to build to the south of Leamington and focussing in one broad area ensures adequate public services can be provided and developed to meet the needs of the new population. The transport assessment clearly shows that development in the North would generate more traffic congestion in the district.
RDS provides for improvement to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. It is possible that mitigation methods may need to be employed in the Southern areas to reduce pollution and congestion but the work needed to do this would be less than that needed for the north. Putting the country park in the South next to the existing houses, with new housing beyond it, would make the green-park more accessible, crossed by cycle-ways and acting as a green-lung to reduce air pollution. The exclusion of development in the North Leamington green belt enables the plan to comply with the NPPF, any attempt to reintroduce this area would be opposed as no exceptional circumstances exist.
see attached
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55377
Received: 22/08/2013
Respondent: Duncan Smart
Supports the Revised Development Strategy. Supports the absence of development on the North Leamington Green Belt around Milverton and Blackdown as this land meets the 5 key roles of Green Belt and is an excellent and well used cultural and exercise related resource. If the Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis identifies an increase in the number of houses above those currently proposed, there is sufficient non-Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development. Proposals represent a fair distribution of housing. Commuting, pollution and infrastructure can be minimised as most of the new development is located close to where employment opportunities already exist and also maximises the opportunity for people to live close to their place of work, improving quality of life. There is ample space to build to the south of Leamington and focussing in one broad area ensures adequate public services can be provided and developed to meet the needs of the new population. The transport assessment clearly shows that development in the North would generate more traffic congestion in the district.
RDS provides for improvement to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. It is possible that mitigation methods may need to be employed in the Southern areas to reduce pollution and congestion but the work needed to do this would be less than that needed for the north. Putting the country park in the South next to the existing houses, with new housing beyond it, would make the green-park more accessible, crossed by cycle-ways and acting as a green-lung to reduce air pollution. The exclusion of development in the North Leamington green belt enables the plan to comply with the NPPF, any attempt to reintroduce this area would be opposed as no exceptional circumstances exist.
see attached
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55378
Received: 21/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Matthew Evenden
Supports the Revised Development Strategy. Supports the absence of development on the North Leamington Green Belt around Milverton and Blackdown as this land meets the 5 key roles of Green Belt and is an excellent and well used cultural and exercise related resource. If the Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis identifies an increase in the number of houses above those currently proposed, there is sufficient non-Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development. Proposals represent a fair distribution of housing. Commuting, pollution and infrastructure can be minimised as most of the new development is located close to where employment opportunities already exist and also maximises the opportunity for people to live close to their place of work, improving quality of life. There is ample space to build to the south of Leamington and focussing in one broad area ensures adequate public services can be provided and developed to meet the needs of the new population. The transport assessment clearly shows that development in the North would generate more traffic congestion in the district.
RDS provides for improvement to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. It is possible that mitigation methods may need to be employed in the Southern areas to reduce pollution and congestion but the work needed to do this would be less than that needed for the north. Putting the country park in the South next to the existing houses, with new housing beyond it, would make the green-park more accessible, crossed by cycle-ways and acting as a green-lung to reduce air pollution. The exclusion of development in the North Leamington green belt enables the plan to comply with the NPPF, any attempt to reintroduce this area would be opposed as no exceptional circumstances exist.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55384
Received: 26/07/2013
Respondent: NHS Property Services
The District currently has 20 surgeries (including branch surgeries) of varying age, size and configuration. The picture of existing surgery provision and the demands placed upon it is therefore complex. NHS England, NHS Property Services and the Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCG's) have commenced a review of its existing estate as part of preparing a long term primary care strategy for the District.
For the Southern Sites there is an estimated 10,019 future residents of the proposed developments and this warrants a new surgery of commensurate size to the existing surgeries and strategically located away from the existing surgeries in order to provide a sustainable and practical solution to meeting the future primary healthcare needs of the area. Need for a 5 GP surgery practice. NHS England will therefore be seeking contributions from all of the proposed developments by way of planning obligations.
NHS Property Services will look to engage with the Council to ensure the information provided is sufficient to support the Council's draft policies and CIL charging schedules in due course.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55391
Received: 28/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Peter Robbins
* The Asps development seems to have been excluded due to the fact that it can be seen from Warwick Castle.
* The heritage value of the castle is within the castle itself, not distant views of it. Previous development has been permitted within view of the castle and this should continue to be allowed to ensure sustainability of Warwick, and certainly before Green Belt development.
* More development opportunity is available in primary service villages outside the Green Belt.
* Many gypsy and traveller sites have been identified and only 2-3 are needed, those remaining must have already been deemed broadly suitable for development and should be built on with housing before Green Belt
.
see attached
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55392
Received: 28/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs Eileen Robbins
Support the RDS, and particular the absence of development on the North Leamington Green Belt around Milverton and Blackdown:
* a fair distribution of new housing across the District, including plans for new houses in the Green Belt at Thickthorn and Lillington as well as proposed development in villages
* however further use of Green Belt would be unsustainable.
* The exclusion of development in the North Leamington Green Belt enables the plan to comply with the NPPF.
* Any attempt to re-introduce further development in the North Leamington Green Belt would be unacceptable as no exceptional circumstances exist for any additional development in the north Leamington greenbelt.
* The land is a vital and immeasurable resource for the future of the district and is critical to its future sustainabllity.
* If the Joint SHMA identifies that it is necessary to increase the number of houses above those currently proposed there is sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.
* Having the majority of the development in the South reduces traffic congestion and reduces air pollution; it enables better provision of public services such as schools and other facilities such as infrastructure along with better access to the employment hubs in the South.
* It will also mean that it will enable the concentration of the majority of the funds from the CIL to be in one area thus providing better value for money allowing a better result from the spending of the CIL for more residents.
* the new Country Park to the South of Warwick and Whitnash should be relocated to allow easier access for the residents from both sides of the parkland rather than just benefiting the new development, thus creating a green lung and reducing pollution.
* Moving it would encourage more residents to benefit from the ease of having recreational ground near to them thus promoting healthy living and giving the existing houses a buffer from the new development.
see attached
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55394
Received: 28/07/2013
Respondent: Frances Karki
Supports the Revised Development Strategy. Supports the absence of development on the North Leamington Green Belt around Milverton and Blackdown as this land meets the 5 key roles of Green Belt and is an excellent and well used cultural and exercise related resource. If the Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis identifies an increase in the number of houses above those currently proposed, there is sufficient non-Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development. Proposals represent a fair distribution of housing. Commuting, pollution and infrastructure can be minimised as most of the new development is located close to where employment opportunities already exist and also maximises the opportunity for people to live close to their place of work, improving quality of life. There is ample space to build to the south of Leamington and focussing in one broad area ensures adequate public services can be provided and developed to meet the needs of the new population. The transport assessment clearly shows that development in the North would generate more traffic congestion in the district.
RDS provides for improvement to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. It is possible that mitigation methods may need to be employed in the Southern areas to reduce pollution and congestion but the work needed to do this would be less than that needed for the north. Putting the country park in the South next to the existing houses, with new housing beyond it, would make the green-park more accessible, crossed by cycle-ways and acting as a green-lung to reduce air pollution. The exclusion of development in the North Leamington green belt enables the plan to comply with the NPPF, any attempt to reintroduce this area would be opposed as no exceptional circumstances exist.
see Attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55397
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Centaur Homes
Agent: Turley Associates
The desire to protect the Green Belt from development where alternative non-Green Belt sites are suitable and available is noted however Green Belt issues should be weighed in the balance with other planning objectives, for example supporting sustainable growth.
In respect of the large more sustainable Primary Service Villages Green Belt release should be considered a necessary requirement of the Plan in order to deliver housing to meet needs in the location where it arises, and in order to underpin the sustainability and viability of such settlements.
The objective of distributing growth across the District including within and lor on the edge of some villages is also supported since a greater number of smaller sites will provide the Plan with inherent flexibility, more able to deal with rapid change should it occur though the Plan period. It will enable housing needs to be met in the location in which it is generated; and will also allow for the benefits of development to be spread.
The policy should set out the levels of growth for the larger more sustainable Primary Service Villages; including reasonably significant housing numbers (without undermining the urban first approach to development).
The Council must ensure that housing is distributed to Primary Service Villages in order that they deliver housing in their own right rather than as a 'sweeper' once all opportunities for development at the larger urban centres are exhausted.
see attached
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 55410
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Steele Raymond LLP & A Rajkowski
Agent: Savills
The provision within policy RDS3 to distribute growth across the District, including within and on the edge of some villages is supported. A hierarchy of growth in the rural areas to include a higher level of growth in the larger, more sustainable villages with a reasonable level of services is also supported.
see attached