Issues

Object

Representation ID: 65318

Received: 25/06/2014

Respondent: Mr Brian Bate

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

WDC is required to address a number of issues. Item 6. Road congestion and air pollution, particularly around the main junctions along the A46 and M40, the routes into the towns, and within the town centres.

They have not in the Transport Assessment considered the number of river and railway bridges that cause traffic congestion. They also have not included journeys to schools by car in the figures.

They have not considered that a number of roads already suffer excessive air pollution levels. Additional vehicles will only make it worse.

Object

Representation ID: 66250

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Lenco Investments

Agent: RPS Planning & Development

Legally compliant? No

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

RPS objects to the Council's approach in selecting strategic sites for development. It is not compliant with the requirement of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive or that of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004.

The Council's reasoning for excluding Land at Baginton from previous consultations has been based upon assumptions for which the Council held no evidence. It is long established that all reasonable alternatives should be considered within the development plan and SEA/SA process, and that failure to do so is a matter of serious concern which can deem the Plan unlawful.

RPS contests that the Council has appropriately appraised this site and that no reason has been provided in any Environmental Assessment on why the land south of Coventry promoted by RPS has been excluded.

RPS therefore presents evidence that the Council has failed in its SEA/SA process to appraise Lenco Investments land south of Coventry as a strategic alternative alongside other reasonable alternatives, as well as a part of a smaller local village allocation. It has failed on two counts.

Object

Representation ID: 66540

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: CPRE WARWICKSHIRE

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The strategy has changed against the siwhes of local people. The previous plan was conservation-minded, but the proposed approach now if for growth with higher levels of employment, population and housing than needed. The New Local Plan is unsound because it does not contain adequate justification for this fundamental change of approach.

Maintaining and enhancing the environment of the district does not appear in the list of five key priorities in paragraph 1.40, yet this is importnat to the charatcer of the District.

It is not clear from the Plan what provision is currently made to meet the housing needs of neighbouring areas. It seems to us that because the Plan assumes substantial continuing in-migration, there is already in effect significant provision for meeting needs originating elsewhere. However Policy DS20 of the Plan is ominous because it envisages even higher housing provision.

Support

Representation ID: 66632

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Place Partnership Limited (PPL)

Paragraph 1.30 criterion (k) as they recognise the crime and the fear of crime, particularly in town centres and the need to protect the community from harm.
Paragraph 1.30 (k) also provides reinforcement for the delivery of the emergency services element of the Council's 'Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan - April 2014', as the funding of such infrastructure will be vital if this issue is to be full addressed over the plan period.