Site Selection Process

Support

Representation ID: 61082

Received: 19/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline Crampton

General comment that an excellent thorough examination has been done.
However the results seem a bit tentative and many sites seem to have been excluded prematurely. If there had been more pressure to find the numbers I suspect more could be made to work. Although Parishes may be reluctant, this is the only way the schools, and other facilities can be maintained.

Object

Representation ID: 61272

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Lenco Investments

Agent: RPS Planning & Development

While it is understood that the Council is currently consulting on its preferred location for small scale village expansion sites, and not strategic land allocations, RPS is of the opinion that the selection of the preferred site at Baginton Village for expansion of the settlement and the consideration of potential alternatives within the current consultation document is predicated on inaccurate and limited evidence from the strategic assessment of the larger site at Baginton, particularly the 2012 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). The process to date can therefore be demonstrated to have inappropriately excluded from the evaluation process not only a suitable site for a wtrategic allocation, but also the potential of the land promoted by RPS to provide a more appropriate and sustainable local extension to the village of Baginton.

Object

Representation ID: 61325

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Spitfire Properties LLP

Agent: RPS Planning & Development

-The VHO fails to identify any settlement boundary for Hatton (Green) village despite the Local Plan identifying that small scale rural settlements should be granted the ability to accommodate small development proposals.

Object

Representation ID: 61609

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Natural England

-Housing Allocations should avoid adverse impacts on National Trails and networks of public rights of way and links should be added and enhanced to existing networks.

-Accessible natural green space should be provided as an integral part of development.

-Green infrastructure maintains critical ecological links between town and country.
The SHLAA should consider the availability of GI and opportunities to enhance GI networks when considering sites for development.

-Land quality varies place to place. Not all land has been surveyed in detail and more detailed field survey may be required to inform decisions about specific sites.

Object

Representation ID: 61727

Received: 18/01/2014

Respondent: Mr David Pickering

Agent: Mr Richard Cobb

-We do not believe all the sites proposed to be allocated in the 12 Primary and Secondary Service Villages will be available or deliverable. Nor will they provide enough houses. The process of identifying such villages has failed to examine whether other settlements might benefit from modest development.

Object

Representation ID: 62045

Received: 13/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Simon Ward

-Rejecting the Peeping Tom (Site 2) in Burton Green for houses being out of character with the surrounding area is a point which should be used for either all of the Burton Green sites or none of the sites!

Object

Representation ID: 63173

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Norton Lindsey Parish Council

The sites for development as stated probably could not in law have phased building

Object

Representation ID: 63207

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

The uses of the first two criteria in this sieving process in paragraph 5.3 are flawed:
-Sites of excessive size should not automatically preclude it as a potential option, on the basis that not all of it may be developed. Parts of a large site may retain good development potential.
-Preclusion of site based on SHLAA commentary is essentially just making a judgement on the basis of desk survey work done. The reduction in the site selection process from 190 to 77 sites prior to field survey is not considered sound methodology.

Object

Representation ID: 63209

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

-In the Overview of Findings the first column relates to 'parcels' of land more frequently than sites. The detailed appraisal in Appendix 6 makes references to SHLAA Potential Impacts and Greenfield Assessment however there is limited information on such matters as visual amenity; site specific character, contextual townscape analysis and therefore it is considered that the methodological progress from the parcel based approach in Appendix 7 to the site appraisal detailed in Appendix 6 is neither logical nor robust.

Object

Representation ID: 63526

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Lenco Investments

Agent: RPS Planning & Development

It is demonstrated below that the authority has not considered all reasonable alternatives within the geographic scope of the plan, has not evaluated or subject the alternatives to the same level of fair public analysis and has continued to reject a site as being suitable despite significant changes of circumstance early in the plan process. It has therefore failed to comply with the above statutes as clarified by recent case law.

Object

Representation ID: 63527

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Lenco Investments

Agent: RPS Planning & Development

RPS objects to the selective and inconsistent approach that the Council has taken where it continues discount parcels of Land at Baginton on no evidence (despite it being presented to the Council on many occasions) and yet at the same time inconsistently include other parcels of land adjacent to land owned by Lenco Investments as a preferred housing allocation and suitable for development.

Object

Representation ID: 63528

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Lenco Investments

Agent: RPS Planning & Development

Coventry City will not be able to accommodate all of its need and Warwick will need to meet in part unmet need of Coventry City, Green Belt sites will need to be considered on the periphery of Coventry City in Warwick District. Land at Baginton will therefore need to be considered as a reasonable alternative in that debate and RPS expects this to occur without prejudice and by full public analysis before any Local Plan can be submitted for examination. In this context, the preferred approach for development at Baginton of just small scale village expansion cannot be predicated on the assumption that peripheral growth for Coventry City's need will occur elsewhere, without fair and equitable consideration of the strategic context.

Object

Representation ID: 63546

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Edward Walpole-Brown

Agent: Brown and Co

Because of prematurity, other sites have not been considered in the detail they should. Fundamentally the system that has been deployed is deficient and does not produce an adequate scoring system to compare the merits of the individual sites. Although flawed the villages selection for the draft hierarchy report have been scored and a similar system should be put in place for the site selection process.

Object

Representation ID: 63564

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: David Wilson Homes

Agent: Turley Associates

Object to the Councils selective approach in considering the contribution specific site options make to the Green Belt. A detailed assessment should have been carried out for all the options under consideration.