H11 Limited Village Infill Housing Development in the Green Belt
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65415
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Mr John Gaffey
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? Yes
Duty to co-operate? Yes
H11 infers deemed consent for infill developments which are located within a Limited Infill Village and comply with the three specified criteria.
The appropriateness of the development should also be assessed in terms of potemtial harm being caused to the green belt and this should be the over-riding consideration.
The drafting of Policy H11 expressly provides for consent to infill development within a Limited Infill Village, conditional upon satisfying the three applicable conditions. This infers automatic consent without sufficient reference and consideration of the protections afforded to the Green Belt by the relevant policies under Section 9 Protection Green Belt Land, of the National Planning Policy Framework and in particular NPPF 88 .
H11 as drafted reinforces the exceptions to inappropriate development referred to under 2.79 of policy DS19 Green Belt giving rise to circumstances where a development falling under the exceptions definition is deemed appropriate.
In theory, a development proposal may fulfil the three criteria listed in policy H11 but may still result in harm to the green belt. Consent for this development would be granted on the basis that 'development will be permitted where the site is located within a Limited Infill Village and the following criteria are satisfied'. The harm caused to the green belt should be a material consideration in determining that the development does not present an 'exception' in terms of policy H11.This situation would have been prevented through the application of the protections provided in section 9 of the NPPF.
The drafting as presented in the Draft Plan will lead to ambiguity and a lack of appropriate protections available to local planning officers to prevent inappropriate development. The ambiguity will also result in an increase in the number of appeals against applications which have been refused.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65536
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Keith Wellsted
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
If all villages in the district, i.e. those within or outside the green belt, there would be less pressure on the growth villages thus reducing the negative impact on these.
If all villages in the district, i.e. those within or outside the green belt, there would be less pressure on the growth villages thus reducing the negative impact on these.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65679
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: The Rosconn Group
Agent: Miss Donna Savage
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
The policy is too restrictive. By restricting new development, the opportunity will be missed to allow villages and their services to remain viable. Without a critical mass, local bus and rail services will be at risk of closure or cuts to services.
See attached
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66013
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Hatton Estate
Agent: RPS
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
This policy is too restrictive as the specified boundaries for infill essentially trace the built up area of the settlements, leaving no available land within the boundary for infill development. This is not consistent with the strategy set out in the Local Plan.
Policy H11 seeks to limit any infilling to two dwellings, which we believe is far too restrictive and is effectively limiting benefits that could be delivered through new development in the village. In relation to Hatton Station, it could prevent development that could itself provide facilities that are not currently available and could have a potential impact on the viability of the station.
Policy H11 is considered to be unsound as it fails the tests in respect to being positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy.
see attached
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66029
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: David Pickering
Agent: Mr Richard Cobb
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
The process of identifying Primary and Secondary Service Villages, has failed to examine in any objective depth whether other limited infill villages might benefit from modest further development.
Within Rowington Green a further limited amount of residential development - beyond the suggested one or two dwellings set out in the policy - would meet the wider identified needs of the community.
The strong locational synergy between Kingswood and Rowington would mean that release of this site at Rowington Green would either take the place of at least one of the sites identified at Kingswood to fulfil the number of dwellings required in that settlement (100-150) of which sites for only 62 were originally designated, now reduced to 43, or contribute additional housing to the total provision being sought by the Council in rural areas.
The Rowington Parish Plan 2009 for example recognised in its guiding principles the need to ensure the continuation and regeneration of the Parish by having a broad range of accommodation including for the elderly, single or young families looking for either smaller or affordable
accommodation. This need was seen as enabling a limited number of younger people to move into the Parish to provide new blood in the community.
See attachment
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66342
Received: 29/07/2014
Respondent: Shirley Estates
Agent: Davis Planning Partnership
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? Yes
Duty to co-operate? No
H11 Policy does not accord with presumption facour of sustainable development set out in NPPF.
See attached
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66518
Received: 05/08/2014
Respondent: Canal & River Trust
require any development at these allocations to not adversely affect the integrity of the waterway structure, quality of the water, result in unauthorised discharges and run off or encroachment; detrimentally affect the landscape, heritage, ecological quality and character of the waterways; prevent the waterways potential for being fully unlocked or discourage the use of the waterway network. We would seek for any development to relate appropriately to the waterway and optimise the benefits such a location can generate for all parts of the community
On behalf of Canal & River Trust we have now had an opportunity to review the document and have the following comments to make:-
Policy DS17 Supporting Canalside Regeneration and Enhancement
We welcome a policy which sets out the requirements of a specific development plan document relating to canalside development. We would be happy to liaise with the Council on production of such a document. The canals can be used as tools in place making and place shaping supporting regeneration.
Culture, Leisure and Tourism
We welcome the references to the canal network as a historic asset and visitor attraction. We also consider the canals are built heritage assets representing a unique working heritage of industrial architecture, archaeology and engineering structures. We welcome the inclusion of policies within the plan relating to ensuring that development protects, enhances and promotes the special qualities of the historic assets within the District. We consider the canals are important tourism visitor destinations and attractions in attracting day-trippers, overnight stays, domestic and foreign visitors, and weekend and short breaks, as well as providing links to other visitor destinations and attractions.
Policy CT4 Extensions to Tourism, Cultural or Leisure Facilities in Rural Areas
We note the requirements of Policy CT4 Extensions to Tourism, Cultural or Leisure Facilities in Rural Areas. However, the canals are non-footloose assets therefore certain types of development and uses are dependent on the location of waterway infrastructure. This should be recognised to ensure that tourism opportunities relating to the canals can be viewed flexibly for their long term sustainability of the canals.
Policy NE7: Use of Waterways
We welcome the inclusion of a policy relating to the canals within the District and the policy requirements reflect many of our principles.
Any references within the document to us should read Canal & River Trust (with an ampersand "&" not the word "and").
We note that the explanation requires the submission of information relating to discharges to the canal with a planning application. We would suggest that ideally a developer should agree with us if a discharge would be acceptable prior to submission of a formal planning application. Our discharge process is separate to our function as a statutory consultee and has timescales which do not necessarily align with the planning process. Planning permission should not be granted for a form of drainage which may not be implementable.
We would suggest the following changes to the wording:-
Detailed information will need to be submitted to the Canal and & River Trust including calculations showing the relevant catchment areas, run off quantities, outfall size(s) and location(s) and the sizing of oil and silt traps that will be required for their assessment. This must be done prior to submitting when a planning application is submitted for development. Advice of the Environment Agency may also be required.
Local Plan Policies Maps
Our review of the Local Plan Policies Maps has identifies a number of housing commitments (Map 2 H11, H16 and H13; Map 3 H16 and H13; and Map 29 H29 and H30) immediately adjacent to the canal and an employment protection site (Map 3 TC12).
We would require any development at these allocations to not adversely affect the integrity of the waterway structure, quality of the water, result in unauthorised discharges and run off or encroachment; detrimentally affect the landscape, heritage, ecological quality and character of the waterways; prevent the waterways potential for being fully unlocked or discourage the use of the waterway network. We would seek for any development to relate appropriately to the waterway and optimise the benefits such a location can generate for all parts of the community.
Please let me know if you need any further information in regard to the comments above.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66564
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: CPRE WARWICKSHIRE
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Policy H11 as written is sound and is established Policy for Green Belt, as earlier set out in PPG2. It allows new houses in washed-over settlements under very strict controls. These are well set-out in the Policy.
Paragraphs 4.77-4.79 are also sound and in accordance with national Green Belt policy.
The policy makes no reference to the village boundaries identified on the policy map. The boundaries do nothing to assist the implementation of Policy H11 and would be likely to harm it by increasing applications which then need to be refused under the terms of the Policy itself.
The NPPF gives no support to showing 'village infill boundaries' for washed-over settlements in the Green Belt.
Village infill boundaries are shown for some small villages outside the Green Belt. These should also be deleted.
see attached
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66602
Received: 25/06/2014
Respondent: Court (Warwick) Ltd
Agent: Stansgate Planning
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
As drafted, policy is unecessarily restrictive and inflexible and as a result the Plan will not deliver level of windfalls required. Plan therefore ineffective/unsound.
No sound justification for artificially limiting scale of development to 2 dwgs as proposed by criterion a). Larger infill and other small scale schemes should be capable of consideration on site-by-site basis without harm to character of village/Green Belt.
Stoneleigh not solely linear with examples of development behind main road frontages. Requirement in cirterion c) therefore inappropriate for Stoneleigh. Development could take place on land which does not front public hgihway without harming character of village/Green Belt
Criterion c) redundant in that impact of proposed development is to be considered under other Plan policies
see attached
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66612
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Mark and Sarah Grimes
Agent: Strutt & Parker
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Support thrust of H11 but there is no robust empirical evidence to restrict the scale to no more than 2 dwellings. Likewise the definition of infill development, being too narrow.
Para. 89 of the framework identifies specific exceptions where new development is appropriate within the Green Belt; limited infilling in villages being one such exception. As presently drafted the policy does not embrace the sustainability ethos set out within the framework at paras. 14, 151, 187 and is therefore unsound, not positively prepared or justified.
To contribute to the present and future economic environmental and social sustainability of villages, especially those washed over by Green Belt, provisions for new housing should be allowed where the scale and nature of the development does not result in significant or demonstrable adverse impacts
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66716
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Mr. A. Burrows
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires 'exceptional circumstances' to allow development in the Green Belt. With regard to the proposed housing development site at Hatton Park, no such special circumstances exist. This is proven by the very recent Housing Needs Survey conducted by the Parish Council and the Warwickshire Rural Communities Council which returned a need for a maximum of 12 homes which could be accommodated by village infill or already identified brown field sites within the parish. The Hatton Parish Plan (2013) also documents major opposition to development in the parish.
See attached