TC2 Directing Retail Development

Showing comments and forms 1 to 2 of 2

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 66503

Received: 25/06/2014

Respondent: Mr Ian Lovecy

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Plan has a number of internal inconsistencies, the most glaring of which is the proposed provision of new retail facilities while expressing the need to retain and develop the retail elements of the town centres, and the express mention of limiting development in existing retail parks for this purpose.
Plan makes assumptions about provision of services which are not within power of either Council or Developers to ensure. Will shops in new areas be profitable enough to attract retailers? Will necessary increase in public transport be financially viable? In the light of recent reports will there be sufficient doctors to staff a medical centre - and will it too be financially sustainable?

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 67162

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Ignis UK Property Fund

Agent: WYG Planning and Environment

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Objection is made to the allocation of Chandos Street car park for a major town centre development under Policy TC4 and its identification on the proposals map.
Ignis argue that the site allocated is not suitable to accommodate the required town centre uses because:-
* The Council's retail study identifies capacity requirements for Leamington Town Centre of 5364sqm (2013) rising to 16674sqm net sales by2029.
* TC4 allocates the current car park (0.8ha) which will not be adequate
* TC4 (Para 3.65)states that further land will be required beyond the confines of the allocated car park area therefore this allocation (identified area) is not considered sound and is inappropriate / not consistent with Government policy and its tests of soundness
* The Chandos street car park has fallen within the area of search under the current adopted local plan (policy TCP3). Despite this favourable policy position it has remained undeveloped since the adoption of the current Plan, further calling into question the allocation of this site as an achievable option.
* The Chandos street planning history casts further doubt on the soundness of this allocation. Wilson Bowden's application (W10 0340) was refused for reasons including excessive bulk and mass, impact on the conservation area, loss of traditional buildings and historic street pattern, excessive car parking, lack of measures to promote public transport.
* In order to address the reasons for refusal(many of which were fully endorsed by statutory consultees), it is clear that any revised scheme would have to be physically smaller (less retail floorspace),have lower parking ratios ,have to respect the historic street patterns, include sufficient buffers so as to respect the residential amenity of nearby properties.
In the three years since the refusal the sites promoters have failed to bring forward a replacement scheme, let alone one which addresses the above points. It is considered that this is a significant challenge and may not be achievable. It is suggested that the plan has therefore not been positively prepared and whether the allocation is a an appropriate strategy which is effective, and thus consistent with national policy as required by the tests of soundness.
To conclude the NPPF (para 182) requires the plan to be justified, effective and consistent with national policy. Site allocations in the plan should be demonstrated to be deliverable over the plan period and to be the most appropriate strategy to pursue. Given the problematical site history and the site constraints that limit the size of the development and therefore its ability to meet need it is not considered that this site allocation is sound.





Full text:

see attached