H0 Housing
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 64535
Received: 26/05/2014
Respondent: Mr K Craven
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The number of housing seems excessive according to comments made in the local paper.
All new housing MUST have
a) off street parking for at least 2 vehicles
b) enough space for the storage of all bins, and recycling boxes/bags to stop residents resorting to leaving them on public view.
The number of housing seems excessive according to comments made in the local paper.
All new housing MUST have
a) off street parking for at least 2 vehicles
b) enough space for the storage of all bins, and recycling boxes/bags to stop residents resorting to leaving them on public view.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65212
Received: 24/06/2014
Respondent: Kenilworth Society
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Policy H0 is unsound because it is not supported by up-to-date evidence on the likely increase in the population of Warwick District.
Reasons for Objection
The Kenilworth Society considers that Policy H0 is unsound because it is not supported by up-to-date evidence on the likely increase in the population of Warwick District and the resultant need for new housing. The latest population projections, which were published by the ONS in May 2014, forecast that, by the year 2031, the population of Warwick District will total 155000. The difference between the ONS figure and the figure stated in Para 4.3 equates to a requirement for around 2800 fewer houses, calculated using the Warwick District SHMA's estimated average household size of 2.33. (See Para 2.14 of the Warwick District Council Strategic Housing Market Assessment Final Report March 2012)
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65222
Received: 24/06/2014
Respondent: Finham Residents Association
I write on behalf of the Finham Residents Association. We support the Warwick District Council Local Plan as it is presented currently for consultation. It sets out to meet the housing needs of the area in an integrated way by ensuring that any development is restricted to 50 houses.
We oppose the late suggestion from Coventry City Council and Councillor Lynette Kelly that 5000 houses should be built on Kings Hill. We fought similar proposals in 2009 CCC Core Strategy and will object to any building on the Green Belt that is Kings Hill.
I am writing on behalf of the Finham Residents Association. Following a Committee Meeting last night we would like to voice our support for the Warwick District Council Local Plan as it is presented currently for consultation. It is advanced in its planning in that it sets out to meet the housing needs of the area in an integrated way by ensuring that any development is restricted to 50 houses.
The late proposal put forward by Councillor Lynette Kelly prospective Labour Candiddate for Warwick and Leamington which was followed by a letter from Coventry City Council offering the land at Kings Hill has taken local residents by surprise. No indication of this proposal was given to our Association or indeed to our three Ward Councillors. We are completely opposed to this proposal and have the written support of our local MP Mr Jim Cunningham who will be contacting you.
In the Coventry Core Strategy of 2009 a similar proposal was put forward to build 3500 houses on the Coventry owned land within Warwickshire. This was vehemently opposed by local residents with support from Keresley, Longford, Cromwell Lane, Ash Green and Bedworth. A local petition gained 4000 signatures and our MP Jim Cunningham arranged for us to present it to the Housing Minister at the House of Commons. We have 1931 houses in Finham and the infrastructure is already at its limits. To add 5000 houses, the size of a small town, next to Finham would serve neither Warwick nor Coventry well.
The Green belt land provides a buffer between Kenilworth and Coventry and if this will be eroded by this proposal. We would become joined and the unique identity of two areas would be lost.
We have always enjoyed a good working relationship with Warwick District Council and hope that you will not be moved to alter your Local Plan by the late proposal from Councillor Lynette Kelly .
If we can assist in any way to further this discussion please feel free to contact us.
Yours sincerely
Bob Fryer
President Finham Residents Association.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65358
Received: 26/06/2014
Respondent: Mr Kevin Olney
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The Local Plan makes no reference to the self-build housing as required by paragraphs 50 and 59 of the NPPF. It is not therefore legally compliant in that it fails to comply with Section 19(2) of the 2004 Act which requires plans to have regard to national policy.
Self build homes are important (as indicated by recent government announcements) and are important in providing a high quality built environment.
Please see attachment for our full representation
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65524
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Keith Wellsted
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Your data is wrong - you do not need this number of houses
Your data is wrong - you do not need this number of houses
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65881
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Centaur Homes
Agent: McLoughlin Planning
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Centaur Homes question the necessity of this policy as the content is covered within other policies, therefore it does not meet the requirements of the Framework.
See attachment
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65891
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Miss L R Vickers
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The Local Plan makes no reference to the self-build housing as required by paragraphs 50 and 59 of the NPPF. It is not therefore legally compliant in that it fails to comply with Section 19(2) of the 2004 Act which requires plans to have regard to national policy.
Self build homes are important (as indicated by recent government announcements) and are important in providing a high quality built environment.
see attached
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65991
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Barwood Development Securities Ltd
Agent: HOW Planning LLP
Barwood support this policy which sets out the Council's strategic approach to
housing, aiming to ensure the District has the right amount, quality and mix of
housing to meet future needs.
See attachment
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66057
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Lenco Investments
Agent: RPS Planning & Development
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
The Council has failed to identify an objective assessment of objectively assessed need for housing. The current proposal is deficient and therefore unjustified and thus unsound.
RPS expect the authority's housing need to be based upon the Government's latest demographic evidence with close scrutiny of their relevance for future planning, and any adjustments made to them being fully justified.
The Council has used the 2011 Interim Population and Household Projections to inform it's housing figures, however these projections only extend until 2021, whereas the Council's SHMA seeks to extend these over the period 2011 to 2031.
It is understood that the SHMA undertook two sensitivity tests. With regard to scenario PROJ1A - 2008 Headship RPS concurs that the use of the 2008 headship rate over the entire plan period in this sensitivity test is likely to be unrealistic.
The second sensitivity test PROJ1A - Midpoint Headship seeks to apply a hybrid of the 2011 headship rate data to 2021 and then 2008 rates post this to 2031. RPS concur that this is an appropriate scenario to apply within the SHMA, however RPS objects to the manner in which this sensitivity test is applied.
See attachment
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66091
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Gleeson Developments
Agent: Savills (L&P) Ltd
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Criteria a) should include reference to not only meeting the Objectively Assessed Need for housing in the District, but also, where necessary, any unmet need arising from outside of the District.
See attachment.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66244
Received: 24/06/2014
Respondent: Crest Strategic Projects
Agent: d2planning
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
This objection should be read in conjunction with our representations on Policies DS2 -Providing the Houses the District Needs and DS6 level of Housing Growth.
Crest support the principle of this policy which indicates that the Local Plan will meet in fully for the objectively assessed need for housing in the District.
The unfortunate position is that the Local Plan fails in meeting this basic principal in that the objectively assessed needs are not met and accordingly the Local Plan does not comply with the NPPF's advice.
see attached
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66292
Received: 26/06/2014
Respondent: Mr H E Johnson
Agent: Bond Dickinson
We support the aim of providing in full for the District's housing need. However, as discussed above, the proposed housing requirement is based on unreliable 2011 Interim Projections and thus is not sound. In addition, these figures do not appear to include an allowance for housing need to be met from other Local Authorities in the HMA, or other neighbouring HMA areas. Accordingly, the requirement proposed is not the objectively assessed housing need and thus does not comply with national policy; nor is it positively prepared.
see attached
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66347
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: David Wilson Homes
Agent: Turley
For reasons set out at policies DS2, DS3 and DS4 we support this policy.
see attached
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66548
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Taylor Wimpey
Agent: Barton Willmore
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Council intend that this Plan will 'provide in full for the Objectively Assessed Need for housing in the District'. However, as per our representations above and the Coventry Sub-Regional Housing Study (Appendix 2), the focus of national guidance is very much on the housing needs of HMAs. In fact, paragraph 47 of the NPPF states that:
"... local planning authorities should:
- use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area..."
The focus on the District as opposed to the HMA in this Policy is also concerning given that the focus for any review of the document is likely to be justified by the need to assist neighbouring authorities who are unable to meet their own needs; which is likely to be an issue in an urban area such as Coventry.
See attached
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66700
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Barwood Strategic Land II Limited
Agent: HOW Planning LLP
Barwood support this policy which sets out the Council's strategic approach to housing, aiming to ensure the District has the right amount, quality and mix of housing to meet future needs.
See attachment
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66749
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Mr Edward Walpole-Brown
Agent: Brown and Co
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Insufficient regard has been had in other places in the report and the site analysis to
in particular, criteria b) - as emphasised before, insufficient regard has been had to
the support and regeneration of existing communities.
See attached
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66769
Received: 26/06/2014
Respondent: Burman Brothers
Agent: Nigel Gough Associates Ltd
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Evidence place for the plan is not properly and fully up to date, particularly as it uses out of date demographics and without the inclusion of various studies and Warwick's housing requirement us actually an objectively assessed need for market and affordable housing need for market and affordable within the relevant housing market area.
see attached
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66776
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Trustees of the Haseley Settlement
Agent: RPS Planning & Development
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
The Council has failed to identify an objective assessment of objectively assessed need for housing. In line with government guidance and recent case law RPS sets out that establishing OAN requires four key components; demographic analysis, economic analysis, affordability and market signals. The Council's SHMA used 2011 interim population projections up until 2021 and extended these to 2031. There is concern over the use of headship rates from 2008 and 2011 to extend the forecasts. Affordability is a key component of establishing need for housing, the SHMA identifies a requirement for 268 dwellings per annum to be affordable. The Council sets a target of 40% which would appear to provide the policy context however based on Council's track record providing an average of 86 affordable homes per year over the last five years the ability to achieve triple the historic level of provision is doubtful.
See attached
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66802
Received: 26/06/2014
Respondent: Gallagher Estates
Agent: Pegasus Group
No objection is raised to this policy suffice to say that it adds little to Strategic Policy DS2 of the Plan which is very similar in its drafting. As set out in responding to Policy DS2 we support the Council's policy intent to provide, in full, for the Objectively Assessed Need for housing in the District. This is commensurate with the NPPF, paragraph 47. We are, however, concerned that in practice the housing requirement figure contained within the Plan at Policy DS6 (12,860 new dwellings 2011 to 2029 as derived from the SHMA) is insufficient to meet the full, objectively assessed need for housing. Please refer to our objections to Policy DS6 and the accompanying Housing Background Paper for further information.
see attached.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66853
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Mrs Carol Cross
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The Local Plan makes no reference to the self-build housing as required by paragraphs 50 and 59 of the NPPF. It is not therefore legally compliant in that it fails to comply with Section 19(2) of the 2004 Act which requires plans to have regard to national policy.
Self build homes are important (as indicated by recent government announcements) and are important in providing a high quality built environment.
see attached
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66856
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Mr Dene Jackson-Clarke
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The Local Plan makes no reference to the self-build housing as required by paragraphs 50 and 59 of the NPPF. It is not therefore legally compliant in that it fails to comply with Section 19(2) of the 2004 Act which requires plans to have regard to national policy.
Self build homes are important (as indicated by recent government announcements) and are important in providing a high quality built environment.
see attached
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66859
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Mr Bob Davis
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The Local Plan makes no reference to the self-build housing as required by paragraphs 50 and 59 of the NPPF. It is not therefore legally compliant in that it fails to comply with Section 19(2) of the 2004 Act which requires plans to have regard to national policy.
Self build homes are important (as indicated by recent government announcements) and are important in providing a high quality built environment.
see attached
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66862
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Mrs Jennifer Bickerstaff
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The Local Plan makes no reference to the self-build housing as required by paragraphs 50 and 59 of the NPPF. It is not therefore legally compliant in that it fails to comply with Section 19(2) of the 2004 Act which requires plans to have regard to national policy.
Self build homes are important (as indicated by recent government announcements) and are important in providing a high quality built environment.
see attached
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66865
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Mr Stephen Pilkington
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The Local Plan makes no reference to the self-build housing as required by paragraphs 50 and 59 of the NPPF. It is not therefore legally compliant in that it fails to comply with Section 19(2) of the 2004 Act which requires plans to have regard to national policy.
Self build homes are important (as indicated by recent government announcements) and are important in providing a high quality built environment.
see attached
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66868
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Mr Robert Sutton
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The Local Plan makes no reference to the self-build housing as required by paragraphs 50 and 59 of the NPPF. It is not therefore legally compliant in that it fails to comply with Section 19(2) of the 2004 Act which requires plans to have regard to national policy.
Self build homes are important (as indicated by recent government announcements) and are important in providing a high quality built environment.
see attached
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66871
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Miss Louise Wilson
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The Local Plan makes no reference to the self-build housing as required by paragraphs 50 and 59 of the NPPF. It is not therefore legally compliant in that it fails to comply with Section 19(2) of the 2004 Act which requires plans to have regard to national policy.
Self build homes are important (as indicated by recent government announcements) and are important in providing a high quality built environment.
see attached
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66874
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Frank Roper
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The Local Plan makes no reference to the self-build housing as required by paragraphs 50 and 59 of the NPPF. It is not therefore legally compliant in that it fails to comply with Section 19(2) of the 2004 Act which requires plans to have regard to national policy.
Self build homes are important (as indicated by recent government announcements) and are important in providing a high quality built environment.
see attached
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66877
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Hampton Magna Residents' Association
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The Local Plan makes no reference to the self-build housing as required by paragraphs 50 and 59 of the NPPF. It is not therefore legally compliant in that it fails to comply with Section 19(2) of the 2004 Act which requires plans to have regard to national policy.
Self build homes are important (as indicated by recent government announcements) and are important in providing a high quality built environment.
see attached
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66880
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: mr clive fennell
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The Local Plan makes no reference to the self-build housing as required by paragraphs 50 and 59 of the NPPF. It is not therefore legally compliant in that it fails to comply with Section 19(2) of the 2004 Act which requires plans to have regard to national policy.
Self build homes are important (as indicated by recent government announcements) and are important in providing a high quality built environment.
see attached
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66883
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Mrs Pamela J Sutton
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The Local Plan makes no reference to the self-build housing as required by paragraphs 50 and 59 of the NPPF. It is not therefore legally compliant in that it fails to comply with Section 19(2) of the 2004 Act which requires plans to have regard to national policy.
Self build homes are important (as indicated by recent government announcements) and are important in providing a high quality built environment.
see attached