RDS4: The broad location of development
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57907
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: L M Wilson
Support the protection that these proposals give to the green belt north of Leamington. If further houses are required, they should not be located in the green belt. Either existing sites should be expanded or brownfield sites in Coventry should be used.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 57940
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Alan Shaw
The proposals will add to congestion on our road infrastructure which is already insufficient. Empty buildings and derelict land should be brought back in to use. We should be protecting greenfield land and rural areas. There should be no further development in villages to protect their character as villages
see-attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 58044
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Richard Aran
Why is all development south of Warwick. Has no-one thought of changing shops back into houses.
Traffic flows in town centres made worse by recent changes. Road structure, traffic flow and pollution levels need to be improved drastically before development takes place.
Impossible to park now and traffic congestion is appauling. Proposal will make it worse - enlarging a few islands, pathetic.
Relocate town bus station and return land to car park use so no more shops close with more people using the internet.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 59149
Received: 30/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs & Mr Julia & David Russell
Stratford District Council are proposing a new town at Gaydon. This wil increase all the problems relating to traffic and hsitoric environment. The two Councils need to work together on these proposals
see-attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 59166
Received: 25/07/2013
Respondent: Mr & Mrs Paul Woddfield
Villages need mixed developments of 25-30 houses to allow local people to opportunity to carry on living locally.
see-attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 59167
Received: 25/07/2013
Respondent: A Stott
Too much development is proposed to the south of Warwick and will result in congestion, will damage the character of the Town and will damage tourism. Browfield sites should be used rather than greenfield sites.
see-attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 59168
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Mrs E C Love
Why is all development south of Warwick. Has no-one thought of changing shops back into houses.
Traffic flows in town centres made worse by recent changes. Road structure, traffic flow and pollution levels need to be improved drastically before development takes place.
Impossible to park now and traffic congestion is appalling. Proposal will make it worse - enlarging a few islands, pathetic.
Relocate town bus station and return land to car park use so no more shops close with more people using the internet.
See attached (needs adding)
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 59179
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: mr Tony Atkins
The area to the south of Warwick will be overwhelmed, affecting existing communities. A fairer distribution including greenbelt sites should be considered.
see-attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 59188
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mr S J Newey
We should be spreading development more widely across the District and within neighbouring authorities. We should use brownfield sites first. The result of the proposed locations 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: 59199
Received: 26/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs Gillian Jackson
Proposal for 100-150 houses in Kingswood would more than double parish population.
Do not object to housing in Kingswood, but not this many which can only be viewed as attack on existing residents.
SEE ATTACHED
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 59200
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Paul M Whitwood
It is unfair the development is being concentrated on a few specific areas, meaning some part of the District are affetced far more than others. Development should therefore be spread across the District based on local needs.
The visual impact of so many houses will be significant. A planning inspector has previously suggested that there should be no further building at Woodside Farm and WDC's landscape consultant has suggested the area to the south of Harbury Lane should not be developed. Concentration of development is being proposed for the wrong reasons - for instance to limit the number of objections and reduce the costs. But spreading houses across the District would reduce the impact infrastructure and would be in the best interests of local residents.
Brownfield sites should be used first, but not all the opportunities are being utilised - for exmple Coventry Airport and railway arches in Leamington. We should also be exploring brownfield sites across the County and West Midlands, before bringing forward greenfield sites.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 59202
Received: 25/07/2013
Respondent: Dr Michael Metcalfe
Too heavily concentrated towards south of district especially south of Warwick and Leamington.
Would destroy nature of historic towns and place unsustainable demands on infrastructure. Increased traffic between proposed estates and employment to north.
Imbalance stems from assumption that this scale of development needed to pass 'soundness 'test. High price to pay to meet perceived requirements to accommodate influx into district.
Reluctance to encroach on green belt to north. Although undesirable, seems likely that north could take larger share without transgressing the separation principle. Not adequate justification for restricting search for Gypsyand Traveller sites to the south.
SEE ATTACHED
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 59214
Received: 23/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs Chris Davis
Development should be spread around the District rather than concentrated on specific areas such as Whitnash. Brownfield sites rather than greenfields should be used first to protect our countryside
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 59222
Received: 24/07/2013
Respondent: Janet Warren
By concentrating development on greenfield sites, the proposals will encourage car dependency as local amenities will not be readily available. This will further add to issues of congestion and pollution.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 59226
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: R Bricknell
There are brownfield sites available that should be used prior to green field sites. As Whitnash has had significant development in recent years, greenfield development should by focused on north Leamiongton where there is a new secondary school. There needs to be more clarity about some of the infrastructure - for example Severn Trent's ability to deliver drains, water and sewers
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 59233
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: 59255
Received: 17/07/2013
Respondent: Julia Grindlay
Levels of pollution in Warwick are already breaching acceptable levels and in this context 4500 houses should not be located to the south of Warwick. The proposals will create additional traffic and pollution with impacts on health. The proposals are at odds with the Council's requirement to reduce traffic on certain streets.
The proposals will ruin the character and aesthetics of he town by involving road widening and traffic signals. It will also make the town less pedestrian friendly. The damage to the historic environment will also undermine tourism. The proposals would encourage car dependent living and would therefore undermine sustainability.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 59284
Received: 28/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs Dawn Leide
The obvious places to build are north of Warwick district towards the proposed Gateway development and in the direction of Gaydon where Jaguar Land Rover and Aston Martin have built close to the M40. The areas which will be devastated by the building of HS2 should be considered for industry and employment.
I support development which is close to A46 i.e. Thickthorn East of Kenilworth and any other development both housing and employment which has direct access to A46 and the motorway network. The obvious places to build are north of Warwick district towards the proposed Gateway development and in the direction of Gaydon where Jaguar Land Rover and Aston Martin have built close to the M40. The areas which will be devastated by the building of HS2 should be considered for industry and employment.
Any development south of Warwick which will have an impact on Warwick town centre should be avoided at all costs. The historic buildings are being eroded and the health of its towns people is at risk NOW from the pollution and poor air quality in the town centre. These beautiful buildings directly and indirectly provide for this town and must not be put at risk. We should be encouraging visitors to the town (what about a park and ride?) to boost the economy not providing a rat run for commuters to Birmingham, London and Coventry.
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 59320
Received: 24/07/2013
Respondent: Colin Quinney
Brownfield sites: The assumption here looks modest. Does the Plan include any assumption here or elsewhere about development of the old Potterton site and possibly greyhound track land alongside the Avon in Warwick? Only phase 1 has been completed and filled, with difficulty. Has the recreation ground alongside the river, which is linked to the Edmonscote sports track been considered as suitable underutilised open space? Given shop vacancy rates and forecast trends, has sufficient allowance been made for conversions to residential in shopping areas, especially if major projects such as Chandos Street were now assumed to be available for high density accommodation?
Opposed to any encroachment into Green Belt designated land in the District if it can possibly be avoided and believe a further review of some assumptions and principles could make this unnecessary. Certainly if it goes ahead the Council should seek to designate additional Green Belt land of the same size or greater than the Green Belt being developed - for example in the Asps area for the reasons highlighted in 4.3.8
I write to support the overall shape of the New Local Plan Revised Development Strategy (RDS), certainly compared to the original Plan, although with some reservations, in particular about its overall scale. I very much support the absence of development on the North Leamington Green Belt around Milverton and Blackdown.
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 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. It would be worth referencing the Joint Green Belt Review 2009 which confirmed the high value of this stretch of Green Belt and is key evidence, more clearly in the Plan document. Development in Kenilworth, Baginton and Lillington may already take land from this essential Green Belt and further development on it would not be sustainable. It must not be permitted.
But I am also opposed to any encroachment into other Green Belt designated land in the District if it can possibly be avoided and believe a further review of some assumptions and principles could make this unnecessary. Certainly if it goes ahead the Council should seek to designate additional Green Belt land of the same size or greater than the Green Belt being developed - for example in the Asps area for the reasons highlighted in 4.3.8
My reservations and suggestions for further review are:
1. Windfalls
There is a large increase between the original and the revised Plans in the number of units being added through windfalls within existing planning boundaries, reducing the units required on new land by 1500 or almost 20% (the change was very clear in the public presentation). This huge revision suggests that the assumptions made for windfall or infill developments coming forward during the Plan period of slightly under 200 units per year (page 13 table 2) - there were 600 in the last year alone - may be significantly understated. 50 additional units a year would remove a further 750 from the newbuild total, roughly equivalent to the proposed greenbelt expansion. The assumption should be carefully reviewed.
2. Brownfield sites
The assumption here also looks modest.
Does the Plan include any assumption here or elsewhere about development of the old Potterton site and possibly greyhound track land alongside the Avon in Warwick ? Only phase 1 has been completed and filled (with difficulty - see below).
Has the recreation ground alongside the river, which is linked to the Edmonscote sports track been considered as suitable underutilised open space ?
Given shop vacancy rates and forecast trends, has sufficient allowance been made for conversions to residential in shopping areas, especially if major projects such as Chandos Street were now assumed to be available for high density accommodation ?
3. Building Densities
It is not clear if the new planning framework will specifically encourage higher density developments eg 4-8 storey townhouses/apartments within existing planning boundaries and in particular close to public transport services. It certainly appears not for newbuild proposals (5.1.3) but presumably this could also be adjusted in the new homes criteria at least in part. This would both be in line with the character of central Leamington and Warwick and take further pressure off the need to build on agricultural land. This option should be given further consideration.
4. Impact on Agriculture
It is not clear from the RDS what the impact would be on agricultural production and whether this has been considered in any judgements about possible alternatives, such as a higher density strategy outlined in point 3.
5. Building Quality and Mix
The criteria set out in 5.14 are sensible as far as they go. If there is any scope in the Plan for specifying higher standards of architecture (innovation, variety, local character etc) and of minimum living/garden space requirements I would strongly support those additions. Such criteria would help developers - and planners - avoid the costs and embarrassment of high vacancy rates on newbuild. The best recent example of this locally is probably the unattractive, rabbit-hutch sized first phase development on the old Potterton site. How the Plan might specify or aim to influence such desirable criteria should be considered.
6. Southern Green Park
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 and if possible larger. It could be crossed by cycle-ways and would act as a green-lung to reduce air pollution.
7. Transport
The cycling plans look convincing. However the enhanced public transport outlined in the RDS seems unambitious and sketchy. Frequency of links should be at least as good as the current G1 and G2 services (every 8-9 minutes) with evening and weekend improvements throughout the District, if congestion is to be convincingly minimised. More detail is required in the Plan demonstrating how services will attract sufficent use to achieve this (coverage, frequency etc).
Two further points might be usefully touched on as part of a wider discussion of transport needs for a growing District:
- planned improvements at the slightly out-of area Gaydon interchange with the M40 will already be in place to assist flows to the south of Leamington (5.1.15)
- how will bus services (new and existing) connect to Railway stations and what is expected in the way of improved rail connections across the District (eg frequency to Coventry, a Kenilworth station) in order to reduce overall road use, pollution and congestion.
Subject to these reservations I broadly support the revised strategy and would make the following points:
8. 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, as I hope it wil not, I believe that there is sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.
9. The RDS 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. (However see the fourth paragraph of this letter and point 1 above). 15% of the proposed development will be in Warwickshire Villages.
10. Given that the RDS will no doubt require some building on new land, even after possible adjustments arising from points 1-3 and 8, the proposal 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) is logical. It 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.
11. 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.
12. The RDS 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.
Less overall development outside the present limits - and particularly within the Green Belt - should be the main objective.
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 59329
Received: 22/07/2013
Respondent: Royal Leamington Spa Town Council
The Town Council acknowledges that Warwick District Council was unable to proceed with its original strategy to spread the new developments throughout the District, and understands that the major sites are all to be in an area to the south of Warwick and to the west of Whitnash.
This presents both threats and opportunities to residents of Leamington, Warwick, and Whitnash. This Council urges Warwick District Council to minimise the negative consequences and enhance the opportunity to create living communities that will enrich the District.
Royal Leamington Spa Town Council broadly welcomes the Revised Development Strategy and in the attached document gives a more detailed response to items within it.
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 59402
Received: 24/07/2013
Respondent: Sir Thomas White's Charity & King Henry VIII Endowed Trust
Agent: Stansgate Planning
It is important that the Local Plan allocates land to all the most sustainable villages, irrespective of whether they are located within the Green Belt or not, to ensure the needs of everyone can be met.
Therefore support the statement that approximately 17% of all housing for the Plan period will be developed on land currently within the Green Belt (some being on the edges of the main settlements and other the edges of villages).
Also recognise that, under the current time constraints, it has not been possible to identify which Green Belt parcels will be developed on the edges of the villages.
Note that further work is ongoing and support this work.
Note, however, that it is essential that the sites are allocated through the Local Plan process as this provides the only opportunity to alter Green Belt boundaries.
see attached
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 59405
Received: 24/07/2013
Respondent: Sir Thomas White's Charity & King Henry VIII Endowed Trust
Agent: Stansgate Planning
Whilst it is appropriate that the majority of development is directed to the urban areas, support the recognition that a reasonable amount should be directed towards the villages. The proportion, 15% of the total, would appear to be appropriate. That level of development will ensure the villages are not swamped, but also that they are able to meet outstanding and future local needs
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 59409
Received: 22/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs E Brown
Agent: Stansgate Planning
Paragraph 4.3.16 correctly recognises that a proportion of the housing allocation will be on land currently in the Green Belt, but fails to make reference to any of that land being on the edge of Coventry.
If consideration of sites on the edge of Coventry has not yet been undertaken, then reference to this should be made. The sites should be considered in the same manner as those on the edge of the Green Belt villages.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 59417
Received: 22/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs E Brown
Agent: Stansgate Planning
Policy RSD4 fails to take into consideration sites on the edge of Coventry which can be allocated for development to meet the housing needs of the District during the coming Plan period. This area for development should be given further consideration and an appropriate allowance made in the Table
see attached
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 59423
Received: 22/07/2013
Respondent: Mr and Mrs G Bull
Agent: Stansgate Planning
Important that the Local Plan allocates land to all the most sustainable villages, irrespective of whether they are located within the Green Belt or not, to ensure the needs of everyone can be met.
Therefore support the statement that approximately 17% of all housing for the Plan period will be developed on land currently within the Green Belt (some being on the edges of the main settlements and other the edges of villages.
Also recognise that, under the current time constraints, it has not been possible to identify which Green Belt parcels will be developed on the edges of the villages.
It is essential that the sites are allocated through the Local Plan process as this provides the only opportunity to alter Green Belt boundaries
see attached
Support
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 59426
Received: 22/07/2013
Respondent: Mr and Mrs G Bull
Agent: Stansgate Planning
Whilst it is appropriate that the majority of housing is directed to the urban areas, support the recognition that a reasonable amount should be directed towards the villages.
The proportion, 15% of the total, would appear to be appropriate and will ensure the villages are not swamped, but also that they are able to meet outstanding and future local needs
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 59471
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mr B H Froggatt
The concentration of so much development on farmland to the south of Warwick has not been justified. 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: 59472
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs Anne Lloyd
The Council should not impose any development on the District's villages as they do not have the community infrastructure/ services in place to support them properly. People would only have to drive to the urban locations in order to seek such needs.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 59479
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mrs Anne Lloyd
The villages in Warwick District should mainatain their current form / identity and not become larger villages (and ultimately small towns). There should not be growth in the villages.
see attached
Object
Revised Development Strategy
Representation ID: 59973
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Mr Trevor E Wood
The Council has made mistakes in the past (Warwick Gates is poorly conceived with poor infrastructure, the new RDS puts the emphsis on development south of the river - previously it was split north and south. The Council (by moving the growth south of the river) has admitted it got it wrong first time - why can't it have got it wrong again!!.
see attached