DS10 Broad Location of Allocated Sites for Housing

Object

Representation ID: 65127

Received: 23/06/2014

Respondent: Mr Tony Robinson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The level of housing proposed south of Warwick is out of proportion with the rest of the area. There is little provision for employment, so people will have to travel to work - hence failing the sustainability policy. It will afflict the historic approaches to Warwick with high traffic volumes and more pollution

Object

Representation ID: 65128

Received: 23/06/2014

Respondent: Mr Tony Robinson

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

A large proportion of the homes are schedulled for south of Warwick. This is driven by the unwillingness of Birmingham and Coventry to examine options for building on green belt. The land south of warwick is away from significant employement areas and will fail the sustainability test for reducing car usage

Object

Representation ID: 65146

Received: 24/06/2014

Respondent: Mrs Pat Robinson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The location of housing is unfairly distributed. Too much is south of Warwick and Leamington.

Object

Representation ID: 65234

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Deeley Group Ltd

Agent: Delta Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Deeley Group object to Policy DS10 as the overall housing numbers being provided for are too low, and specifically, the allocation of numbers to the Growth Villages is too low.It is considered that the shortfall in numbers should be met (at least in part) through an increase in the number of homes being provided for within the Growth Villages and the rural area, and should be more in line with the numbers proposed in the earlier versions of the Local Plan which were double that now proposed.

Object

Representation ID: 65279

Received: 25/06/2014

Respondent: A C Lloyd Homes Ltd

Agent: Delta Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

A C Lloyd Homes object to Policy DS10 as the overall housing numbers being provided for are too low, and specifically, the allocation of numbers to the Growth Villages is too low. It is considered that the shortfall in numbers should be met (at least in part) through an increase in the number of homes being provided for within the Growth Villages and the rural area, and should be more in line with the numbers proposed in the earlier versions of the Local Plan which were double that now proposed

Support

Representation ID: 65470

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: King Henry VIII Endowed Trust (Warwick)

Agent: AMEC

The Trust supports the Council's decision to direct most new development to sites within, or to the edge, of the main towns within Warwick District namely Leamington, Warwick, Whitnash and Kenilworth. Having regard to existing development constraints within the district, including the extent of designated Green Belt land, we also support the Council's decision to direct some development to named 'Growth Villages"

Object

Representation ID: 65471

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Sarah Palmer

Agent: Davies and Co

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The broad location of allocated housing sites is supported, insofar as it includes provision for housing outside of the principal urban areas i.e. within the Growth Villages/rural areas. However, it is considered that the Growth Villages should, generally, have a higher housing figure and that this should specifically apply to Burton Green. Greater housing numbers in the GV's would reinforce their sustainability and allow them to better fulfil their role in the settlement hierarchy. In Burton Green specifically, an increase would serve both these purposes and help in providing a counter-balance to the impact of HS2

Object

Representation ID: 65489

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Keith Wellsted

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Greenfield sites allocated in the plan place a disproportionate impact on the edge of Warwick, Whitnash and Leamington. Further more there is no mention of the much better placed site on land near Kings Hill Lane

Object

Representation ID: 65505

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Ms Lynnette Kelly

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

There is an additional site that should be included as a potential development site. Coventry City Council has agreed that the area known as Kings Hill, which is in Warwick District but lies adjacent to Coventry, can be included as a potential site but Warwick have not included it in the Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 65641

Received: 23/06/2014

Respondent: Mr Ian Evans

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The area around Warwick has undergone significant development over the past 20 years with various large Housing estates (Chase Meadow, Hatton Park and Warwick Gates), Retail, industrial & Business Parks. This is already placing an overburden on the local area.
Further development increases the urban sprawl into the surrounding countryside and increases the local population (permanent and transient).
Warwick was designed to deal with 17 and 18th century traffic and is already choked by traffic congestion and grid locked at rush hours.

Many of the existing local large employers for example on the Technology Park do not employ the local population, but people from further afield, which adds to the local congestion in/out and around the town. Some do relocate, but this only creates a demand for further housing, more school places etc, etc.
The ongoing development in and around Warwick is not sustainable.

Support

Representation ID: 65667

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Stephen Trinder

Support the distribution of proposed new housing as set out for Leamington Spa, Warwick, Kenilworth and the various growth-point villages in Warwickshire in the Draft Warwick District Local Plan up to 2029. Proposals contained in the Draft Local Plan to 2029 satisfy Warwick planning authority's legal requirements in respect of the plan, including its duty to cooperate, and the plan meets all the requirements of soundness. Also support construction of fewer dwellings at these locations if new ONS data downgrades projected population figures for Warwick District and then leads to a reduction in the numbers of dwellings proposed for construction.

Object

Representation ID: 65678

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Warwickshire Gardens Trust

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Remain strongly opposed to placing about half of the proposed green field allocation on land south of Warwick because of its impact on:

Warwick Castle Park, Grade 1 listed park and a site of considerable sensitivity and historic importance. Study appended to this representation examining the historical evolution and the importance of the road as par of the design of Castle Park. Furthermore, the management of land beyond the park was considered integral to the design.

In relation to proposed strategic transport improvements the effects on Castle Park and Banbury Road approach, the setting of the Castle and the whole historic town centre.

These sites are both a profligate use of land and will generate a concentration of traffic where it will be most harmful. The proposed "mitigation" measures in the Arup report in fact are a demonstration that these large developments south of the river should not happen.

Changes to road layout will still be visually damaging to the setting of the park, castle and town, as will the additional traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 65706

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Hatton Estate

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Hatton Estates are the co-promoters with Bloor Homes of the land at Hatton Hill (south of Birmingham Road). Objection is made to the allocation of land north of Birmingham Road (H28) which should be deleted and replaced by the land at Hatton Hill for the following reasons¬:-
*Hatton Park residents access/ use the school, church and pub in the locality. The Hatton Hill site is better located to these facilities. It is illogical to prefer a site that is further away.
*The Hatton Hill Site promoted by this representation could encompass an extension to the Hatton Locks car park (currently with insufficient capacity and being used intensively by visitors to the locks/canal). This would resolve a current local issue with better/ safer access thus bringing real benefits to the local community
*A new roundabout access to the Hatton Hill Site would provide a safe point of access as well as reducing traffic speed on the busy A4177 Birmingham Road. The site currently in the Local Plan would be accessed opposite the dangerous Ugly Bridge road in the most dangerous and congested section of the Birmingham Road.
*There have been 85 objections to the site currently in the Local Plan, this is a measure of the local concern and an indicator of the significant adverse impact it will have on a large number of properties/ families adjacent to it.
*The intended alternative at Hatton Hill would be well screened by an intended tree/ landscape buffer and would not impact on surrounding properties and the wider landscape.
*The Hatton Hill site is currently arable land and is sheltered by trees and hedges and has minimal ecological or landscape merit. The careful integration of SUDS and the protection of existing edges of the field will enhance ecology and landscape.
*The site is hidden/ protected from the nearby canal by trees, a further belt of trees and landscaping is intended
*The Hatton Hill site is 'self-contained' and could not be extended if further houses were required in the future. The current allocation is causing alarm with the local community as it is perceived as being ripe for extension into the open countryside for future requirements.
*To conclude the current allocation in the plan is considered unsound and not justified based on the evidence available and given that there is a more suitable alternative at Hatton Hill.

Object

Representation ID: 65725

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council Physical Assets Business Unit

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Considers that the approach taken through DS10 for appropriate redevelopment of previously developed sites and focusing development on greenfield sites south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash is justified and in accordance with the principles of sustainable development.
The balance of allocated sites in the Plan between urban brownfield sites and other sites is affected by the proposed distribution of employment land. Allocating B1 offices on the fringe of the urban area reducing land available for housing is contrary to the NPPF town centres first' approach in paragraph 23.
WDC has not undertaken a sequential assessment for town centre offices and full justification for the release of more sequentially preferable sites.

Object

Representation ID: 65737

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Mr. Paul Davison

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Then proposals for the areas to the south of warick will lead to large characterless suburbs in areas that are currently attrctive countryside. Previous undertaking to protect the area to the west of Europa have now been abandoned. There has been extensive development along Myton Road in recent years. Just because the area is attractive does not mean we should accommodate housing for newcomers. The priority should be for local families.

The proposals will undermine the attractiveness of the two towns.

Object

Representation ID: 65756

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Miss Emma Bromley

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The location of so much development in the south of the District will encourage car use. Jobs and schools to support this development do not exist.
The proposals are not consistent with the NPPF and appear to be financially motivated.
The loss of so much greenfield land is unsustainable. The greenfield areas to the south of the District play an important part in separating communities and are limited in extent. The Local could lead to communities being joined together by development. It is not necessary to develop greenfield sites. The proposals will lead to a large funding gap in infrastructure provision, particularly in mitigating traffic movements across the towns. Additional traffic signals have already been required for new developments. The allocations are to the south of the towns, will encourage more movements across the towns including crossing the river, canal and railway. The proposals do not provide for a bypass or other means to avoid the town centre. This additional traffic will make pollution worse and increase health risks.
The result of allowing houses to be built on every single green space between housing is that sites cannot be integrated and cannot deliver the infrastructure required.
The proposals will damage important heritage assets in Whitnash by building on every remaining greenfield space.

Support

Representation ID: 65876

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Centaur Homes

Agent: McLoughlin Planning

Centaur Homes support the strategy of allocating sites in the most sustainable towns and villages. Hampton Magna has been identified as a Growth Village and
development here will provide an opportunity to rebalance the local housing market and provide much needed affordable housing and local market for local residents. In light of other representations, further additional development should be directed to the village to meet the aims and objectives of paragraph 55 of the Framework.

Object

Representation ID: 65986

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Barwood Development Securities Ltd

Agent: HOW Planning LLP

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Notwithstanding this support, Barwood reiterate paragraph 17 of the Framework which states that Local Planning Authorities should actively manage patterns of growth and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable. Additionally, the Framework states the supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or extensions to existing villages, which follow principles of Garden Cities.

Land South of Mallory Road is consistent with the Council's spatial strategy. The site offers the potential to deliver highly sustainable development as a sustainable
extension to an existing village.

Support

Representation ID: 66036

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: A C Lloyd Homes Ltd

Agent: Stansgate Planning

Policy DS10 sets out the amount of housing to be allocated to the main urban areas and the more sustainable villages. The Council is right to recognise that a proportion of the development should be directed to locations beyond the four major settlements of Kenilworth, Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash. Without this recognition some of the other settlements are likely to struggle to meet their own needs, and to retain the younger generations. The result of this would be a continuing spiral of decline to the detriment of the local economy and of local communities.

Object

Representation ID: 66055

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Lenco Investments

Agent: RPS Planning & Development

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

RPS objects to this policy as it is not positively prepared as it does not meet the housing needs within Growth Villages. Additional local growth is required at Baginton to support the growth status of the village.

RPS has identified a strategic site on the edge of Coventry to meet the needs of Warwick arising from the Gateway Site and that of Coventry City. However, RPS is also promoting a part of the site as a phase 1 development to deliver much needed local housing within the village and
objection is raised to the level of development currently identified to Baginton as a 'Growth Village'.

RPS supports the need for expansion at Baginton, but considers 35 dwellings unrepresentative of the level of housing need in the village.The identified housing need is considered out of date and not robust, the housing requirment is considered closer to that identififed in the Revised Developmnent Strategy of between 70 and 90 dwellings.

Support

Representation ID: 66087

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Gleeson Developments

Agent: Savills (L&P) Ltd

The distribution of housing across the District and especially to Kenilworth on both urban Brownfield sites and Greenfield sites on the edge of the town reflects the identified need/demand findings of the SHMA. It also accords with the "golden thread" of sustainable development set out in the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 66161

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Warwick County Councillors (J. Holland; A. Warner & J. St John)

Number of people: 3

Agent: Jenny St. John

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The over-development of the greenfield sites on the edge of south Warwick will result in air pollution which the Strategic Transport Assessments cannot mitigate. This will affect both the health of residents and the structure of our multiple historic buildings, which are so important to our sense of place and culture. Warwick already suffers from pollution levels above European guidelines on safety. The plan is not consistent with national policy on conserving and enhancing the natural environment. The latest ONS figures predict 29% fewer residents through the life of the plan therefore there should be a reduction in the number of homes required in the District, removal of a substantial number of development sites south of Warwick to prevent increased air pollution and comply with the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 66167

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Hallam Land Management and William Davis

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Hallam Land Management and William Davis consider that the policy working to DS10 should be changed to meet the changes to Policy DS11, which they outline in separate submissions.

Object

Representation ID: 66213

Received: 23/06/2014

Respondent: The Club Company UK Ltd

Agent: Hancock Town Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The number of dwellings allocated to the rural areas have reduced since the Revised Development Strategy therefore the strategy is overwhelmingly urban focused and takes insufficient account of rural housing needs. There is no robust reason for a lower level of housing provision in Leek Wootton compared with similar villages. It appears to be based on the conclusions of the Landscape Study. In relation to land at The Warwickshire the December 2013 report indicated that small scale development in the vicinity of the entrance of the club may be acceptable. This reference was removed without explanation from the April 2014 update. Consideration of potential development is far too broad brush to assess the site specific landscape impact of small scale development. The conclusion that the whole site is of high landscape value has fed into other reports. The SA only considers the larger parcel of land previously put forward in the SHLAA. The Council has therefore not provided any written evidence that it has considered in proportionate detail the reasonable alternatives to the proposed strategy. It has not analysed what is considered to be the advantages tof developing a small part of LW07: access to the site is easy and safe via the internal club drive,
15 dwellings could be set back to ensure The Warwickshire's undeveloped frontage is retained, could be accomodated on the lowest lying part of the site, selective tree planting could enhance the landscape, land is well related to the A46, frontage already benefits from street lighting , bus services pass directly outside the site, is well related to the village school. In contrast the proposed allocations highway improvements, visibility at the Warwick road junction is poor requiring the need for improved safety. Concerns are exacerbated by the uncertainty over the future of the Police HQ. Does express strong support for the development of the proposed housing site H37 Car Park East of The Hayes

Object

Representation ID: 66236

Received: 24/06/2014

Respondent: Crest Strategic Projects

Agent: d2planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

There is a recognised and identified need for additional housing within the District not just to meet the District's housing needs but probably also those of adjoining Districts such as Coventry.

The Local Plan should and must provide the necessary certainty that those needs will be met. This can only be achieved if additional land is identified for housing development.

It is considered that in meeting the actual housing needs for the District (and perhaps those of adjoining Districts) that land currently within the green belt and particularly to the south of Coventry needs to be released.

Object

Representation ID: 66268

Received: 27/07/2014

Respondent: Mr. Paul Hodge

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The New Local Plan disregards green belt yet does not pursue with sufficient vigor brown field sites. Obviously, brown field sites are preferable yet appropriate greenbelt would be a far better option to distribute the development, rather than inappropriate green field sites. The area between Myton Road and Europa Way is high grade agricultural land, full of wildlife, ancient trees and hedgrows, it should not be developed in favour of brownfield alternatives.

The plan is not justified because it crams so much of the new development into the already congested south part of the district, due to development pressure.

The plan is not justified because it is creating more car-dependent suburbs and consequently thousands more car journeys each day.

The plan is unsound because it will contribute to the already illegal air quality in central Warwick.

This problem has been in existence long before the Preferred Options were set out and remains in breach of these regulations today. I object to the increased public health risk which adding more cars to the centre of Warwick at peak times will certainly contribute to.

Object

Representation ID: 66272

Received: 30/06/2014

Respondent: Matt Western

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Plan is not justified, as the over-development of the greenfield sites on the edge of south Leamington and Warwick will result in air pollution which the Strategic Transport Assessments cannot mitigate. This will affect both the health of residents and the structure of our multiple historic buildings, which are so important to our sense of place and culture.

The 1993 Local Plan and the Inspector's Report in 1994 required measures to reduce the impact of traffic on our town centre. And yet, over two decades on, we have been unable to mitigate the traffic effect of this development, despite funding from the developer. I do not believe further development should be approved without first meeting our previous obligations.

The location of the proposed development does not allow sustainable transport to be taken forward. Distances will be too great for pedestrians. Viable public transport will not be possible.

Object

Representation ID: 66275

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Agent: Stansgate Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

District Council has not made adequate provision to meet full and objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing (para 47 of NPPF). Quantum of housing development needs to be substantially increased and the distribution of provision needs to be amended to release more housing in sustainable rural locations such as Growth Villages to achieve core planning principles set down in NPPF (paragraph 17) and requirement to deliver wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities (NPPF, paragraph 50). Even if quantum of housing not increased, distribution of housing growth needs to be reconsidered to allow more housing growth to take place within sustainable rural locations such as Growth Villages
RDS (June 2013) recognised (Policy RDS3) desirability of distributing growth across District, including within and/or on edge of some villages, and allowed for a hierarchy of growth in rural area to include higher level of growth in larger, more sustainable villages with services. RDS provided for circa 1,000 dwellings to be provided in the then designated Primary/Secondary Service Villages and subsequent appraisal work does not remove need to provide for more housing across the District, in order to meet requirements of NPPF/Council's own objectives. Appraisal work does not justify reducing amount of housing to be directed to larger, more sustainable villages.

Object

Representation ID: 66331

Received: 30/06/2014

Respondent: Mr Richard Munday

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The effect of 1000 new homes in Kenilworth, particularly Eastern Kenilworth, will be devastaing.

Over 1000 more cars causing congestion.

The present leafy, semi rural feel of Kenilworth will be lost with the proposed over development here and elsewhere in the Warwick and Leamington, the area will become like a giant conurbation.

Object

Representation ID: 66338

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Mr. Paul Davison

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Despite recent improvements at Greys Mallory and Ford Foundry, there is still congestion along Europa Way. the transport mitigation for Europa Way would not work as it would lead to a bottleneck as would routes in to Warwick. New development will make this worse.