DS19 Green Belt
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 64517
Received: 25/05/2014
Respondent: Mr Daniel Badcock
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? Yes
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Baginton and Leek Wooton derive much of their character from being within the setting of green belt land. These settlements are substantialy different from others on the list and should retain green belt status.
Dveleopment around Coventry airport may harm PRoW and the amenity value of surrounding green belt land. Development would be acceptable if balanced with benefits.
Baginton and Leek Wooton derive much of their character from being within the setting of green belt land. These settlements are substantialy different from others on the list and should retain green belt status.
Dveleopment around Coventry airport may harm PRoW and the amenity value of surrounding green belt land. Development would be acceptable if balanced with benefits.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 64527
Received: 26/05/2014
Respondent: Mr Richard Thwaites
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Inappropriate development within the green belt is to be resisted. The National Planning Policy Framework provides guidance on inappropriate development and identifies exceptions such as previously developed land.
All the sites except one, put forward for development within Hampton Magna are 100% greenfield agricultural land.
The Maple Lodge site is approx 25% previously developed land and it's development would be more compliant with NPPF policy.
Inappropriate development within the green belt is to be resisted. The National Planning Policy Framework provides guidance on inappropriate development and identifies exceptions such as previously developed land.
All the sites except one, put forward for development within Hampton Magna are 100% greenfield agricultural land.
The Maple Lodge site is approx 25% previously developed land and it's development would be more compliant with NPPF policy.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 64921
Received: 17/06/2014
Respondent: Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
The JPC is disappointed that WDC have not seized the opportunity to re-evaluate the Greenbelt within its area in a realistic and imaginative manner.
An aggressive "growth agenda" in a district of c.80% Greenbelt, with a near sacrosanct approach to Greenbelt puts unrealistic and unsustainable pressure on the remaining non-Greenbelt area, south of Warwick and Leamington, and renders this Draft Local Plan UNSOUND.
2 - Greenbelt Issues
The JPC is disappointed that WDC have not seized the opportunity to re-evaluate the Greenbelt within its area in a realistic and imaginative manner.
An aggressive "growth agenda" in a district of c.80% Greenbelt, with a near sacrosanct approach to Greenbelt puts unrealistic and unsustainable pressure on the remaining non-Greenbelt area, south of Warwick and Leamington, and renders this Draft Local Plan UNSOUND.
Given that we are/are likely to be expected to accept overflow from Coventry (See 2012 ONS figures) it would be most appropriate to look at some Coventry "urban extension" into WDC Greenbelt as a priority and not to expect to re-locate such overflow to the south of Warwick and Leamington.
Similarly imaginative use of pockets of relaxation immediately adjacent to other settlements could dramatically improve capacity and relieve some of the pressure currently focussed on the area south of Warwick and Leamington.
Removal of Greenbelt status to facilitate the Gateway project (Sub Regional Employment Allocation DS16) shows that it can be done where there is a political will so why not extend the concept to accommodate some of the housing need and a significant proportion of the G&T provision.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65076
Received: 26/06/2014
Respondent: The Community Group
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Policy DS16 Sub-Regional Employment Site is unsound, it contravenes the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework); there has been no consultation with the local community and other stakeholders concerning the removal of this land from Green Belt; the Sub-Regional Employment Site is NOT the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives.
There are no 'exceptional circumstances' that would justify the revision of the Green Belt in this location. The identified site should be removed from the proposals map and the area around Coventry airport retained in Green Belt.
Policy DS16 Sub-Regional Employment Site is unsound, it contravenes the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework); there has been no consultation with the local community and other stakeholders concerning the removal of this land from Green Belt; the Sub-Regional Employment Site is NOT the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives.
There are no 'exceptional circumstances' that would justify the revision of the Green Belt in this location. The identified site should be removed from the proposals map and the area around Coventry airport retained in Green Belt.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65119
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Nurton Developments & the Forrester Family
Agent: Chave Planning
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
In view of our other representations in respect of Policies DS6, DS7 and DS20, it is considered that the Local Plan needs to make provision for more housing and further land will need to be removed from the Green Belt.
Policy DS19 should therefore make provision for further land to be released from the Green Belt and for the Green Belt to be reviewed through the review of the Local Plan.
In view of our other representations in respect of Policies DS6, DS7 and DS20, it is considered that the Local Plan needs to make provision for more housing and further land will need to be removed from the Green Belt.
Policy DS19 should therefore make provision for further land to be released from the Green Belt and for the Green Belt to be reviewed through the review of the Local Plan.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65123
Received: 23/06/2014
Respondent: Bubbenhall Parish Council
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
The proposal to remove land for a sub-regional employment site in the vicinity of Coventry Airport from the Green Belt has NOT been the subject of appropriate public consultation with the local communities and other stakeholders. The Revised Development Strategy June 2013 identified the site for employment but retained it in Green Belt.
This area of Green Belt south of the City of Coventry is crucial to the prevention of urban sprawl as identified in the NPPF. The VERY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES required to remove this land from Green Belt are NOT PROVED.
The proposal to remove land for a sub-regional employment site in the vicinity of Coventry Airport from the Green Belt has NOT been the subject of appropriate public consultation with the local communities and other stakeholders. The Revised Development Strategy of June 2013, which was consulted upon, identified the site for employment but retained it in Green Belt.
This area of Green Belt south of the City of Coventry has been and remains crucial to the prevention of urban sprawl as identified in the NPPF. Any unjustified proposal to remove this land from Green Belt and to do so without any public consultation is self-evidently unsound.
The employment land required for Warwick District has been assessed as 66 hectares and has been met in the provisions of this draft local plan (paras 2.26-7).
The Joint Employment Land Review (JELR) referred to in para 2.71 has NOT been completed and is NOT in the public domain to enable legitimate assessment of the claims made in 2.71. There are as yet NO 'objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements' (para 1.8) for employment land from outside Warwick District. Therefore 'unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities'(para 1.81) CANNOT form the basis for policies in this draft local plan.
The Publication Draft proposes to take the site out of the Green Belt while the outcome of a Public Inquiry on a major planning application for the site (the Coventry and Warwickshire Gateway) is still awaited.
The proposed retention within the Green Belt of 111 hectares of this Green Belt (para 2.75 bullet one) relates specifically to the planning application for the 'Coventry and Warwickshire Gateway'.
There are no VERY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES required by the NPPF to justify removal of this land from Green Belt.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65175
Received: 24/06/2014
Respondent: Sundial Group Ltd
Agent: Mr Marcus Bates
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Land at Woodside Training Centre SHLAA 14 Reference K19 remains in the draft proposals as a wedge of isolated Green Belt surrounded by built development (allocation ED2 and HO6) and the A46. With this in mind and conscious that the land already includes areas of significant built development and hardstanding, it is our view that this land fails to meet any of the five stated purposes of including land within the Green Belt.
Land at Woodside Training Centre SHLAA 14 Reference K19 remains in the draft proposals as a wedge of isolated Green Belt surrounded by built development (allocation ED2 and HO6) and the A46. With this in mind and conscious that the land already includes areas of significant built development and hardstanding, it is our view that this land fails to meet any of the five stated purposes of including land within the Green Belt.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65213
Received: 24/06/2014
Respondent: Kenilworth Society
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The Kenilworth Society considers that the removal of these sites is unsound because:
a) The Local Planning Authority has not involved the community in the preparation of this part of the Plan. The "Revised Development Strategy" that was published for public consultation in June 2013 retained all three sites in the green belt.
b) There do not appear to be good planning reasons for the removal of these sites from the green belt. In the case of the Coventry Gateway, the reason seems to be the local planning authority's retrospective justification of consent to a planning application. The Draft Local Plan does not provide evidence to support the change. Nor does Sustainability Appraisal Report assess the merits or otherwise of removing the sites from the green belt. It merely states that they are within the green belt.
Reasons for Objection
The Kenilworth Society considers that the removal of these sites is unsound because:
a) The Local Planning Authority has not involved the community in the preparation of this part of the Plan. The "Revised Development Strategy" that was published for public consultation in June 2013 retained all three sites in the green belt. With regard to the land near Coventry Airport (Coventry Gateway) Para. 5.5.8 of the 2013 document specifically said "...It is not proposed that this Local Plan amends Green Belt boundaries in this area..."
b) There do not appear to be good planning reasons for the removal of these sites from the green belt. In the case of the Coventry Gateway, the reason seems to be the local planning authority's retrospective justification of consent to a planning application. The Draft Local Plan does not provide evidence to support the change. Nor does Sustainability Appraisal Report assess the merits or otherwise of removing the sites from the green belt. It merely states that they are within the green belt.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65337
Received: 25/06/2014
Respondent: Mr Carl Stevens
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Whilst the council attach much to the removal of green belt areas from the plan. That has been indiscriminate and not applied in a fair and robust way. Basic common sense is that the number of houses proposed on green belt is low in % terms in the plan leading to questions about the soundness of the decision that circumstances are exceptional under NPFF.
Whilst the council attach much to the removal of green belt areas from the plan. That has been indiscriminate and not applied in a fair and robust way. Basic common sense is that the number of houses proposed on green belt is low in % terms in the plan leading to questions about the soundness of the decision that circumstances are exceptional under NPFF.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65340
Received: 25/06/2014
Respondent: Mr Peter Barclay
I support the plan as drafted, as it allows for the controlled incursion into current greenbelt land that is deemed necessary for a controlled expansion of housing to extend existing communities. However I am concerned that the recent news in the press regarding Kings Hill may be re-considered as a possible development site for 5,000 homes within the new local plan. This type of development would destroy ay kind of boundary between Coventry and Kenilworth, creating an urban sprawl that would be unsupportable by the current road infrastructure.
I support the plan as drafted, as it allows for the controlled incursion into current greenbelt land that is deemed necessary for a controlled expansion of housing to extend existing communities. However I am concerned that the recent news in the press regarding Kings Hill may be re-considered as a possible development site for 5,000 homes within the new local plan. This type of development would destroy ay kind of boundary between Coventry and Kenilworth, creating an urban sprawl that would be unsupportable by the current road infrastructure.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65347
Received: 25/06/2014
Respondent: Mrs Laura Teodorczyk
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The NPPF generally protects Green Belts from development. It does encourage some specific growth, but this should be concentrated on previously-developed land or within towns/villages, NOT to the edge of villages.
WDC has not published its discussions with neighbouring authorities, so working to an assessment based on the maximum 12,900 across the district is premature.
WDC has not clearly adopted a sequential test to prioritise development in brownfield locations, and is not doing enough to deliver homes on current development sites and other derelict urban sites (eg along the canal).
The NPPF generally protects Green Belts from development. It does encourage some specific growth, but this should be concentrated on previously-developed land or within towns/villages, NOT to the edge of villages.
WDC has not published its discussions with neighbouring authorities, so working to an assessment based on the maximum 12,900 across the district is premature.
WDC has not clearly adopted a sequential test to prioritise development in brownfield locations, and is not doing enough to deliver homes on current development sites and other derelict urban sites (eg along the canal).
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65352
Received: 26/06/2014
Respondent: Martin Teodorczyk
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The NPPF generally protects Green Belts from development. It does encourage some specific growth, but this should be concentrated on
previously-developed land or within towns/villages, NOT to the edge of villages.
Development is proposed in Green Belt locations when the "exceptional circumstances" required in the NPPF do not exist.
WDC has not clearly adopted a sequential test to prioritise development in brownfield locations, and is not doing enough to deliver homes as part of mixed use development on brownfield sites (e.g. land around Leamington station).
The NPPF generally protects Green Belts from development. It does encourage some specific growth, but this should be concentrated on
previously-developed land or within towns/villages, NOT to the edge of villages.
Development is proposed in Green Belt locations when the "exceptional circumstances" required in the NPPF do not exist.
WDC has not clearly adopted a sequential test to prioritise development in brownfield locations, and is not doing enough to deliver homes as part of mixed use development on brownfield sites (e.g. land around Leamington station).
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65355
Received: 26/06/2014
Respondent: Martin Teodorczyk
This should not detract from my other representations made, specifically about how the Green Belt is not suitable for development as exceptional circumstances do not exist.
However I support the principle that where a site is to be taken out of the Green Belt to facilitate development, settlement boundaries are drawn tightly and decisively to provide a clear distinction between the settlement envelope and the Green Belt.
This will protect the remaining Green Belt more strongly and eliminate ambiguity where Green Belt 'washes over' settlements.
This should not detract from my other representations made, specifically about how the Green Belt is not suitable for development as exceptional circumstances do not exist.
However I support the principle that where a site is to be taken out of the Green Belt to facilitate development, settlement boundaries are drawn tightly and decisively to provide a clear distinction between the settlement envelope and the Green Belt.
This will protect the remaining Green Belt more strongly and eliminate ambiguity where Green Belt 'washes over' settlements.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65363
Received: 26/06/2014
Respondent: John Bausor
Agent: Keyhaven Consulting Limited
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
The Plan is not justified in that the inclusion of these sites at Crew Lane for housing and their exclusion from the Green Belt is, in part, a reasonable alternative to the provision of housing in Kenilworth on a very limited number of large sites.
The increase in the level of housing to be provided for in the Plan period as between the Revised Development Strategy and the Publication Draft has necessitated an increased provision being made in and on the edge of Kenilworth, together with a major education allocation at Southcrest Farm, with a consequent removal of land from the Green Belt.
Representation 57673 submitted in response to the RDS promoted land to the north of Crew Lane and east of Glasshouse Lane as a suitable location to provide a choice of smaller sites for those wishing to live in Kenilworth. They are at the edge of the urban area and will, if the Plan is adopted in its present form, will be adjacent to Site ED2 at Southcrest Farm. Their Green Belt function will, therefore, be diminished to a material extent.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65384
Received: 26/06/2014
Respondent: Mr Richard Taulbut
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
DS19 proposes release of Green Belt land at Red House Farm. Release of such land is only justified in exceptional circumstances. No such circumstances have been given.
At DS11 and DS18 it is stated that this land will be used for 250 houses in support of the regeneration of Lillington. However, the same proportion of affordable houses (40%) is proposed as in every other part of the district. Therefore the need cannot be seen as exceptional. Repair and renewal of social housing is the every-day business of local authorities. It is not exceptional and cannot justify release of Greenbelt.
DS19 proposes release of Green Belt land at Red House Farm. Release of such land is only justified in exceptional circumstances. No such circumstances have been given.
At DS11 and DS18 it is stated that this land will be used for 250 houses in support of the regeneration of Lillington. However, the same proportion of affordable houses (40%) is proposed as in every other part of the district. Therefore the need cannot be seen as exceptional. Repair and renewal of social housing is the every-day business of local authorities. It is not exceptional and cannot justify release of Greenbelt.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65399
Received: 26/06/2014
Respondent: Mr. Robert Taylor
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
I strongly object to Baginton losing its greenbelt status. There is no justification for this in the government guidelines as quoted in the draft local plan so therefore WDC cannot remove the greenbelt designation from Baginton.
I strongly object to Baginton losing its greenbelt status. There is no justification for this in the government guidelines as quoted in the draft local plan so therefore WDC cannot remove the greenbelt designation from Baginton.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65411
Received: 26/06/2014
Respondent: Cllr George Illingworth
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
In paragraph 2.81 it is proposed to include "Land in the vicinity of Coventry Airport (sub-regional employment site)" amongst areas to be removed from the Green Belt. It is national planning policy that changes to the Green Belt can only be made in exceptional circumstances through the Local Plan process involving public consultation and robust examination. On this particular change there has not only been no public consultation, but a complete reversal of the previously consulted policy.
In paragraph 2.81 it is proposed to include "Land in the vicinity of Coventry Airport (sub-regional employment site)" among the areas to be removed from the Green Belt. It is national planning policy that changes to the Green Belt can only be made in exceptional circumstances through the Local Plan process involving public consultation and robust examination. On this particular change there has been no public consultation. Indeed the exact opposite has happened. In the previous Revised Development Strategy of June 2013 it was logically argued with some conviction that the area should remain in the Green Belt despite being a possible site for industrial development. The public were therefore reassured that should the very special circumstances to enable development at that site be justified it would require standards of design and mitigation appropriate to the unusual circumstances of developing in the Green Belt.
It was therfore a complete surprise and the exact opposite of the expected policy following the previous stages of consultation in the preparation of the Plan when, without any obvious explanation, the policy was completely reversed in the Publication Draft.
It has been made very clear in the Guidance Notes to this Consultation on the Publication Draft that comments can only be made on the legal requirements and soundness and therefore this consultation cannot itself constitute the public consultation required on the the idea of removal of this particular area from the Green Belt.
However further comments will be made in the evidence to the Enquiry as that will be then be relevant.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65424
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Nurton Developments
Agent: Chave Planning
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
In view of our other representations in respect of Policies DS6, DS7 and DS20, it is considered that the Local Plan needs to make provision for more housing and further land will need to be removed from the Green Belt.
Policy DS19 should therefore make provision for further land to be released from the Green Belt and for the Green Belt to be reviewed through the review of the Local Plan.
In view of our other representations in respect of Policies DS6, DS7 and DS20, it is considered that the Local Plan needs to make provision for more housing and further land will need to be removed from the Green Belt.
Policy DS19 should therefore make provision for further land to be released from the Green Belt and for the Green Belt to be reviewed through the review of the Local Plan.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65426
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Burton Green Parish Council
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
We accept taking the site for housing allocation out of green belt. We do not accept that the existing properties in the village need to be taken out of the green belt.
We are concerned that the green belt no longer washes over Burton Green Parish. The Parishes within WD area which have been given a defined number of housing allocations have then had the area in which to provide those houses decided for us. There is no logical reason why further areas need to be removed from the green belt in any of the villages. In Burton Green many sites were offered as development possibilities but all of these have remained in the green belt.
The border between two districts, Warwick District and Solihull Borough, in different counties Warwick shire and the West Midlands, is no longer defined by green belt along the whole of Cromwell Lane as it has been removed. This does not meet normal practice.
Burton Green is a ribbon development, and that feature is an important part of the character of the area, and one of the things current residents cite as a reason for living here. We acknowledge that some housing development will take place in the village but that should not be allowed to affect the current properties and their character. We would like to propose that other than the Housing Allocation site the rest of Burton Green is returned to green belt status to prevent inappropriate piecemeal development. Development in the newly defined brown sites would involve removal of present houses and replacement with houses that would not fit with the established local scene. Ribbon development does not lend itself to this type of development.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65450
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Sworders
We support this policy as it is entirely in accordance with national policy and consequently sound. Our support is, however, on the basis that the Green Belt boundary as per the policies map includes the Green belt releases necessary to deliver the District's housing needs. Without the Green Belt Review the Green belt boundary would not endure beyond the plan period and consequently fall foul of paragraph 83 of the NPPF and be unsound.
We support this policy as it is entirely in accordance with national policy and consequently sound. Our support is, however, on the basis that the Green Belt boundary as per the policies map includes the Green belt releases necessary to deliver the District's housing needs. Without the Green Belt Review the Green belt boundary would not endure beyond the plan period and consequently fall foul of paragraph 83 of the NPPF and be unsound.
Whilst we are not seeking a modification, we would welcome the opportunity to participate in the oral examination in order to be able to fully represent the benefits of the site which cannot be dealt with satisfactorily through written representations alone.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65475
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: King Henry VIII Endowed Trust (Warwick)
Agent: AMEC
The District Council's decision to review Green Belt boundaries is consistent with national planning policy guidance. The lack of suitable and available sites to meet objectively assessed housing needs provides the exceptional circumstances for a review of Green Belt boundaries. However before land can be released from the Green Belt for development it has to be shown that doing so would not be in conflict with the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy nor the stated five purposes it serves (refer NPPF paragraphs 79 - 80). This has been achieved via the Warwick District Council's own review of village green belt boundaries undertaken in 2013 to inform the Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundary Consultation (November 2013).
We consider the approach adopted in the District Council's Green Belt study to be sound and the key findings robust.
see attachment
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65482
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: The National Trust
Legally compliant? No
Sound? Yes
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Policy DS19 'Green Belt' does not make clear the full extent of development being proposed in the Green Belt and would benefit from much better cross-referencing with other policies and proposals in the plan
Policy DS19 'Green Belt' which is limited to a single page in the document, does not make clear the full extent of development being proposed in the Green Belt and would benefit from much better cross-referencing with other policies and proposals in the plan (e.g. DS10, DS11, DS16, MS1, MS2, H1, H11, HE4, CT2, CT4, NE6), together with the specific references defined on the Proposals/Policy Maps. It should not really be necessary to have to read the whole document in order to try and understand all the Green Belt implications of the Plan. For example, Policy MS2 'Major Sites in the Green Belt' does not make any reference to the 'Coventry and Warwickshire Gateway' proposal, which may have significant Green Belt implications and is discussed in Policy DS16, but not cross-referenced in Policy DS19. The potential 'cumulative impact' on the Green Belt from possible major development and associated transport infrastructure is also not mentioned, e.g. Coventry & Warwickshire Gateway; HS2; coal gasification; and housing development.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65493
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Sarah Palmer
Agent: Davies and Co
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
The removal of villages (where currently "washed over") from the Green Belt is logical and is supported. However, specifically in relation to Burton Green, the continuance of Green Belt status for the land at Red Lane, described in our representation under DS11 is objected to.
The removal of villages (where currently "washed over") from the Green Belt is logical and is supported. However, specifically in relation to Burton Green, the continuance of Green Belt status for the land at Red Lane, described in our representation under DS11 is objected to.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65508
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Keith Wellsted
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Whilst I support the concept of the Green Belt you have already decided to remove some land from it so this is possible. The current Green Belt envisaged Coventry growing towards Leamington and Kenilworth and sought to stop this. The area south of Leamington was seen as safe. This has led you to place to high a burden on this area in the plan.
Whilst I support the concept of the Green Belt you have already decided to remove some land from it so this is possible. The current Green Belt envisaged Coventry growing towards Leamington and Kenilworth and sought to stop this. The area south of Leamington was seen as safe. This has led you to place to high a burden on this area in the plan.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65520
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Sharba Homes Group
Agent: PJPlanning
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Green Belt sites have been chosed before non-greenbelt sites have been exhausted. It is clear that there is a vast disproportion of distribution throughout the District's villages. Larger, more sustainable villages, with boundaries outside of Green Belt are proposed to accommodate far less housing when compared to smaller, less sustainable villages tightly constrained by Green Belt. 64% of the total requirement is expected to be achieved from villages currently within Green Belt, despite Barford and Radford Semele being capable of accommodating far higher levels of housing than proposed. As there are additional sites within these two non Green Belt villages that can accommodate housing without the need for incursions into Green Belt the approach to is unsound and does not comply with national policy.
Please see the attached representation submitted by PJ Planning on behalf of Sharba Homes Group
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65631
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Lioncourt Strategic Land - Andy Faizey
Agent: Savills
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The Local Plan is not sound as it has not been positively prepared, justified and is not consistent with National Policy. The Green Belt Review 2009 identified Oaklea Farm and Baginton as sensitive sites and as such, retained in the Green Belt. These same sites are now proposed to be released from the Green Belt. The site at Kings Hill, Finham however, was recommended for further detailed study and this has not been carried out. Furthermore, the Green Belt and Green Field Review 2013 does not assess the Kings Hill site, but no reason for this is given.
see attached
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65681
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Stoneleigh & Ashow Parish Council
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The list of sites proposed to be removed from the Green Belt includes "land in the vicinity of Coventry Airport (sub-regional employment site)". This change was not included in previous versions of the emerging WDC plan, The RDS explicitly argued against such a course of action. There has therefore been no prior consultation on this proposed GB change. This makes the proposed policy unsound and unjustified because the consultation process has not allowed effective engagement of interested parties.
See attached
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65710
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Trustees of the Haseley Settlement
Agent: RPS Planning & Development
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The Council has failed to ensure the permanence of the Green Belt to ensure beyond the Plan period as required by the NPPF. The Council has not provided for its objectively assessed need nor made satisfactory provision for the level of housing generated from the Gateway site. The level to which the Green Belt has been amended is insufficient to meet the needs of the District and Sub-Region. There is no formal commitment to undertake a strategic review of the Green Belt despite committing to reviewing housing numbers by 2015 within the CWLEP Strategic Growth Plan. The SHLAA identifies a number of village sites suitable for development subject to green belt boundaries being amended. However the plan fails to take the SHLAA into account when drawing the settlement boundaries of the villages within the Green Belt. For example despite the SHLAA identifying site R39 at Hatton Green as suitable and available the proposed village boundary excludes the site. No housing sites are identified at Hatton Green despite it being a sustainable location with a primary school, nursery school and community facilities. In direct contrast 80 dwellings are proposed at Hatton Park which has no facilities and is considered to extend the built form beyond clearly identifiable and defensible limits of green belt.
See attached
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65828
Received: 25/06/2014
Respondent: Mrs E Brown
Agent: Stansgate Planning
The Council has recognised the need to allocate existing Green Belt land for residential development. This has been fully justified. It is therefore essential that the Green Belt boundaries be amended to allow the development to proceed, as set out in DS19 and paragraph 2.80.
see attached
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65879
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Centaur Homes
Agent: McLoughlin Planning
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
This policy restates national policy and does not provide any further information and as the Framework is a material consideration in the decision taking process this document should already be referred to without the need for this policy to explicitly state it.Therefore, it does not accord with paragraph 154 of the Framework
See attachment