DS18 Regeneration of Lillington

Object

Representation ID: 65378

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Mr Richard Taulbut

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The explanation at paragraph 2.77 is factually incorrect and therefore DS18 is not justified. Lillington East Super Output Area is amongst the 20% most deprived areas nationally, not Lillington overall; specifically for Employment, Education, Skills & Training. For Living Environment the area scores above the district average.
The proposed housing on Green Belt land at Red House Farm will diminish the Living Environment of the area and will fail to address the specific deprivation issues of employment and education.

Support

Representation ID: 65504

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Keith Wellsted

An area in need of improvement

Object

Representation ID: 65933

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Ms Beth Forster

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Exceptional circumstances for Red House Farm have not be established. This area provide tranquillity and recreation. the riding school, will suffer noise and pollution. the proposals will have a permanent and disastrous impact on the landscape and will lead to urban sprawl and loss of open, natural space.

Object

Representation ID: 65934

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Mr Andrew Adams-Green

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

WDC not proven exceptional circumstances for proposal
There is no regeneration plan of Lillington
Policy DS18 is highly inaccurate
Consultation has been patchy and ineffective
Loss of recreational amenity 'riding school'
No explanation of why brownfield sites could not be used.
Ecological and environmental studies have not been carried out.
Represents only 1.5% of total housing needed but has a huge impact on the landscape.

Support

Representation ID: 66288

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Mr H E Johnson

Agent: Bond Dickinson

We support the regeneration of Lillington, including its Local Shopping Centre.

Support

Representation ID: 66512

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Friends of the Earth

Number of people: 4

Support

Object

Representation ID: 66626

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Dr Diana Taulbut

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

- It is not clear what is meant by Lillington Local Shopping Centre in the policy, does the policy mean Crown Way Shops??.If it means the demolition of existing perfectly good buildings then the policy should say so clearly and then public opinion can be sought properly.
- DS18 contains inaccuracies, it is contended that Lillington is not as deprived as set out in the policy justification.
- The proposed regeneration strategy has not been tested to see if it is economically viable / deliverable.
- If "reviewing the existing services" means demolishing the current public services / facilities this does not represent good use of funds as many of the assets are perfectly good enough as they are.
- policy DS18 may embrace very substantial changes to Lillington that are not justified and have not been tested to ensure that they are viable. This makes the plan uncertain and unsound. To enhance conditions/ opportunities in the area the Council needs to identify and target funding. The demolition and re-building of existing facilities does not represent good value and is unnecessary as most services are already located / represented here.
- The policy seems by default to suggest the re-development of Crown Way shops and / or the use of the Mason Avenue public open space for new development. The policy is difficult for the public to understand / interpret and therefore should be made clearer so that meaningful and proper consultation can take place.

Support

Representation ID: 66664

Received: 18/06/2014

Respondent: Royal Leamington Spa Town Council

The Council recognises the unique position of Lillington and parts of the Crown Ward and welcomes the objective of encouraging regeneration of this area through the allocation of land currently within the Green Belt for housing and enhancing employment opportunities. It is important that the social characteristics of the area are recognised within any future housing provision by ensuring sufficient numbers of affordable homes and a mix of housing types.

Object

Representation ID: 66850

Received: 25/06/2014

Respondent: Protect Lillington Green Belt [Petition]

Number of people: 555

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

- It is not clear what is meant by Lillington Local Shopping Centre in the policy, does the policy mean Crown Way Shops??.If it means the demolition of existing perfectly good buildings then the policy should say so clearly and then public opinion can be sought properly.
- DS18 contains inaccuracies, it is contended that Lillington is not as deprived as set out in the policy justification.
- The proposed regeneration strategy has not been tested to see if it is economically viable / deliverable.
- If "reviewing the existing services" means demolishing the current public services / facilities this does not represent good use of funds as many of the assets are perfectly good enough as they are.
- policy DS18 may embrace very substantial changes to Lillington that are not justified and have not been tested to ensure that they are viable. This makes the plan uncertain and unsound. To enhance conditions/ opportunities in the area the Council needs to identify and target funding. The demolition and re-building of existing facilities does not represent good value and is unnecessary as most services are already located / represented here.
- The policy seems by default to suggest the re-development of Crown Way shops and / or the use of the Mason Avenue public open space for new development. The policy is difficult for the public to understand / interpret and therefore should be made clearer so that meaningful and proper consultation can take place.