Purpose and role of the Draft Local Plan
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 64518
Received: 26/05/2014
Respondent: Mr Richard Thwaites
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
The Local Plan fails 2 of the 4 tests of soundness.
Justified. The plan should be the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence.
In Hampton Magna, the preferred option is not the most appropriate, other alternatives are more compliant with NPPF policy and guidelines and the evidence base used was flawed.
Consistent with national policy
NPPF enables local people to be empowered to shape their surroundings, yet Hampton Magna residents objections have been ignored or overruled. Possible use of brownfield land within Hampton Magna has been ignored.
The Local Plan fails 2 of the 4 tests of soundness.
Justified. The plan should be the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence.
In Hampton Magna, the preferred option is not the most appropriate, other alternatives are more compliant with NPPF policy and guidelines and the evidence base used was flawed.
Consistent with national policy
NPPF enables local people to be empowered to shape their surroundings, yet Hampton Magna residents objections have been ignored or overruled. Possible use of brownfield land within Hampton Magna has been ignored.
Support
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 64585
Received: 03/06/2014
Respondent: Mr Haydn Rees
I believe that the processes have been lengthy, thorough and fair. Any exercise of this kind is going to cause a lot of concern and unhappiness, but I think that the process has been well-handled. There have been many opportunities for people and organisations to express views, and in the case of Kingswood/Lapworth it is clear that those representations have been considered, examined, and accepted in many cases. It is to be hoped that any future amendments will be equally fairly reviewed and consulted on.
I believe that the processes have been lengthy, thorough and fair. Any exercise of this kind is going to cause a lot of concern and unhappiness, but I think that the process has been well-handled. There have been many opportunities for people and organisations to express views, and in the case of Kingswood/Lapworth it is clear that those representations have been considered, examined, and accepted in many cases. It is to be hoped that any future amendments will be equally fairly reviewed and consulted on.
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65359
Received: 26/06/2014
Respondent: ms monica fletcher
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? Yes
Duty to co-operate? No
Concerned that access to health services, particularly the impact on Warwick Hospital has not be fully considered. It is essential that any planned growth in population needs to consider the impact on both primary care and hospital services. If the South Warwickshire General Hospitals Trust expand it may have to be on the Stratford site and thus Warwick residents will have to travel to Stratford for appointments they currently would have in Warwick
Objection to the Local Plan proposals.
We are the Patient Reference Group of the New Dispensary GP Surgery in Chase Meadow, Warwick.
Our Surgery is located on Chase Meadow in a new building which resulted from the 1994 Local Plan. Medical facilities have been provided for the new residents on the estate, but this is was not a new GP practice. The practice relocated from a building in Castle Street in 2008.
The new modern facilities are most welcomed by both the staff at the practice and patients. However for some patients who reside in central Warwick the practice has become more difficult to access because of the distance from home. The Surgery been reasonably well served by a bus service which we understand only continues with the support from a County Council subsidy. We understand that this service will cease when this subsidy is eventually withdrawn, which is of great concern to the practice and patients alike as without suitable transport links some patients may be unable to get to the Practice.
We have some concerns that the proposed new estates in the current Local Plan proposals could have a similar effect in worsening access to GP services for existing residents. It is essential that any planned growth in population needs to consider the impact on both primary care and hospital services and we would like reassurance that this has been given serious consideration throughout your planning processes.
We are particularly concerned about the impact on Warwick Hospital. As you will be well aware this is located on a congested site in a residential area with big parking problems. We assume that developer funding will be passed to the NHS to build capacity for the increase in our local population, however we cannot physically see how this could be developed on the current site in Warwick. If the South Warwickshire General Hospitals Trust expand it may have to be on the Stratford site and thus Warwick residents will have to travel to Stratford for appointments they currently would have in Warwick.
As a Group we also support campaigns for healthy lifestyles. Your proposals seem to be for garden suburbs where residents will only have the option of travel by car. We appreciate that health can be designed in to new developments but your current concept appear to be flawed.
Monica Fletcher, Chair New Dispensary Surgery Patients Participation, Group , Alder Meadow, Warwick June 2014
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 65714
Received: 27/06/2014
Respondent: Taylor Wimpey
Agent: Barton Willmore
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Paragraph 157 of the NPPF clearly expects that Local Authorities Plan for a 15-year period post-adoption and to comply with this we consider that the Council should be planning to, as a minimum, 2031. In all likelihood following the submission of the Plan and the Examination process, adoption would be in mid-2015 at the earliest and thus the Plan is likely to cover a period of less than 14 years post-adoption. The decision not to plan to 2031 is further questioned given that Table 97 of the Coventry and Warwickshire joint-SHMA sets out a housing requirement covering the period up to 2031 for the District; and this provides a critical part of the time-sensitive evidence base.
See attached
Object
Publication Draft
Representation ID: 66633
Received: 26/06/2014
Respondent: Place Partnership Limited (PPL)
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
Paragraphs 1.6 and 1.7 of the Local Plan are welcome and supported, however there is concern that no reference is made to paragraphs 58 and 69 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). These state that planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve places which promote: -
'Safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion.'
Paragraphs 58 and 69 of the NPPF put in planning terms the following statutory duty of local authorities: -
'Without prejudice to any other obligation imposed upon it, it shall be the duty of each local authority to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of those functions on, and the need to do all that it reasonably can, to prevent crime and disorder in its area.' Section 17(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
see attached