Consultation

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 48

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 64519

Received: 26/05/2014

Respondent: Mr Richard Thwaites

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The preferred option for Hampton Magna was well known before the start of the consultation process, rendering the whole process invalid. The preferred level of growth was ignored and the distribution of growth and proposed housing sites took no notice of overwhelming local objection. 99% of respondents were opposed to the preferred option for development, 92% of the respondents were in favour of the Maple Lodge site being selected as the preferred option for development

Full text:

The preferred option for Hampton Magna was well known before the start of the consultation process, rendering the whole process invalid. The preferred level of growth was ignored and the distribution of growth and proposed housing sites took no notice of overwhelming local objection. 99% of respondents were opposed to the preferred option for development, 92% of the respondents were in favour of the Maple Lodge site being selected as the preferred option for development

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 65326

Received: 25/06/2014

Respondent: Mr Carl Stevens

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The consultation process has been undermined by council and planners not taking enough account of the many consistent views of the people that count - the voting public, their MP, local councillors...

Full text:

The consultation process has been undermined by council and planners not taking enough account of the many consistent views of the people that count - the voting public, their MP, local councillors...

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 65419

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Mrs J Mackenzie

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Consultation. This highly legalistic and inaccessible to the general public consultation contains items on which there has been no previous consultation. Certain points eg Gateway to be taken out of the green belt have been introduced into this final version.

Full text:

Consultation. This highly legalistic and inaccessible to the general public consultation contains items on which there has been no previous consultation. Certain points eg Gateway to be taken out of the green belt have been introduced into this final version.

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 65643

Received: 24/06/2014

Respondent: Mr Barry Lovekin

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The allotted time period of 6 week for comments before the plan is submitted to the Secretary of State is surely too short for obtaining a considered reply from the majority of citizens of Warwick, Leamington and surrounding villages, given the extent of the planned expansion and complexity of the plan which will have a profound effect on Warwick District and this part of England.

Full text:

In response to receipt of the letter from Dave Barber, Development Policy Manager, inviting comments on the Warwick District Local Plan, I would respond as follows.

1)Firstly the allotted time period of 6 week for comments before the plan is submitted to the Secretary of State is surely too short for obtaining a considered reply from the majority of citizens of Warwick, Leamington and surrounding villages, given the extent of the planned expansion and complexity of the plan which will have a profound effect on Warwick District and this part of England.

2)I moved to Warwick in 1976 and bought a new house and I now have young family who live on the fairly recent development of Hatton Park. So as an individual resident why should I have objection to new housing? In principle of course not but the problem with the plan is the shear scale of the proposed expansion which will put a huge strain on local services, hospitals, schools and transport/travel on local roads which is already at peak times a problem. A more modest expansion of some villages and making the most of available brownfield sites within Warwick and Leamington areas would be acceptable to the majority of people who already live in the area, and given that there are already approved plans for new housing under the old plan!
3)It is a matter of opinion whether the views of Cllr Les Caborn who is driving this over ambitious plan is necessary to sustain the a prosperous future for Warwick Town and District. We are not in an isolated part of UK and being close to Coventry, Birmingham and with good rail links to London! ie if Coventry, Birmingham and London continue to prosper then nearby towns such as Warwick and Rugby will also continue to prosper! Also has proper account been taken of the effect of the expansion plans for Coventry and South Birmingham.

4) I gather that a number of councillors and Chris White MP (who never seems to go public on his views when attending Westminster!) are opposed to this plan, as are most people in Warwick, including Warwick Society, Leamington Society, Bishops Tachbrook Parish Council and the recently formed Save Warwick group. Why can't our Councillors concentrate on serving the local community and resist Central Government, who are hell bent on the South Midlands absorbing people from the over populated London Area and the South East, which is now in desperate difficulties due to mass immigration. The drive from Westminster is relentless both in regard to the plans for HS2 (which is an over expensive and damaging 'white elephant') and a new 15yr plan for thousands of new homes. Warwick County and District Councils seem to be happy to support these Governments plans which involve using large areas of the south midlands green belt and change forever the the nature and environment of the historic towns of Warwick and Leamington and the surrounding villages.

Obviously I am another individual resident who has great concerns for the future of Warwick District under these new plans but feel frustrated at the whole process and objectives of local government, and of course this response will not receive a considered reply. So I am at least hoping that the aforementioned protest groups and our local MP's will force a rethink regarding the proposed plan.

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 65690

Received: 23/06/2014

Respondent: Richard Evans

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Additional sites at Kenilworth included in the plan without previous consultation.

Lack of taking into account local feeling. Council have disregarded local view for heavier level of development.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 65750

Received: 25/06/2014

Respondent: Mr Robert Price

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

There has not been a genuine process of consultation. The initial consultation indicated a majority in favour of a low level 5,500 whereas as the eventual plan proposes 12,900. Although the plan has been presented to the public at various stages there has been little change as a result of public opposition to the overall scale of development, urbanisation of the south of the district, encroachment on the green belt. The final revision of H28 (Hatton Park) reducing the site area without reducing the house numbers took place without consultation with the local community although the authority was in contact with the developer.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 65890

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Hazel and Robin Fryer

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The plan has not engaged with community involvement at all stages of its production. A number of issues have been altered since the previous public consultation and the Local PLan is not ready for submission to an inspector. Response format and short time period for consultation makes it difficult for the general public to make a contribution on outstanding issues. Unpublished sub regional policies have been used to make major decisions which circumvents public consultation.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 66203

Received: 01/07/2014

Respondent: Hatton Parish Council

Number of people: 53

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

There has not been a genuine process of consultation.

The initial consultation as to the level of development indicated a majority in favour of a low level (about 5,500 dwellings). The eventual plan proposes 12,900.

Although the Plan has been presented to the public at the various stages of its evolution, there has been little change as a result of the response from the public opposing the overall scale of development, urbanisation of the South of the District and encroachment on the Green Belt.

Site H28 (Hatton Park): The final revision of this site, reducing the site area without commensurate reduction in housing numbers took place without proper consultation with the local community, although the Authority was in contact with the developer involved

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 66350

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Mr Dean Epton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

No genuine process of consultation. Document presented to public at various stages of its evolution but little change resulting from response regarding scale of development, urbanisation of south and encroachment into Green Belt

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 66354

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Miss Emma Bromley

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

WDC has ignored the views of local people who live in the areas most affected by the proposed development despite high numbers of objection. Yet developers have been consulted and applications have been granted despite valid objections against them.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 66355

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Peter & Linda Bromley

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

WDC has ignored the views of local people who live in the areas most affected by the proposed development despite high numbers of objection. Yet developers have been consulted and applications have been granted despite valid objections against them.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 66367

Received: 30/06/2014

Respondent: Mr john fletcher

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Several held and absence of district councillors and lack of changes as result of public objections evident

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 66375

Received: 23/06/2014

Respondent: Mrs Elaine Kemp

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

There has not been a genuine consultation process. Most people favoured a low level of housing growth. Although consultations have taken place there has been little change to the overall scale of development, the impact on the south of the District and the impact on the green belt.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 66386

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Warwick Town Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Local councils and people have been firm in their assessment that the number of dwellings proposed is far in excess of local needs. These views have been repeatedly rejected by WDC and at no time has it shown a willingness to work with Warwick town Council or local residentas to achieve a draft plan which reflected local views and could be supported.

The District Council consultation ignored the intentions and expectations of the Localism Act 2011, which is that the Local PLan would be fully reflective of decision making by local people. Confirmed by Andrew Langley MP whose advice was that WDC would apply the NPPF in the context of decision making by local people.

Attachments:

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 66395

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Cllr Elizabeth Higgins

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Consultation with and involvement of interested parties is flawed.

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 66418

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Sharba Homes Group

Agent: PJPlanning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

It is our belief that consultation responses to the plan, and other supporting reports to inform it have not been fully considered; in particular there has been no detailed response made to our, or most of other party's comments to the VHO, or previous versions of the Local Plan.

In light of this, we submit that the plan cannot be declared positively prepared until such consultation is shown to have directly informed plan making, with detailed responses to consultations having been published.

Full text:

Please see the attached representation submitted by PJ Planning on behalf of Sharba Homes Group

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 66542

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: CPRE WARWICKSHIRE

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 66686

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Save Warwick

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

There have been serious shortcomings in the processes the Council has used in the development of the Plan. The Council has not properly considered the representations on the Local Plan submitted by residents and the community.

*The Plan does not comply in terms of the letter and spirit of the NPPF and the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
*The Council's approach to "pre-determination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption.

*It is the view of Save Warwick that the processes undertaken in the course of the preparation of the local plan by the District Council denied the public, councillors and other consultees genuine participation in the plan making process by:-
-Ignoring representations and / or delaying the council's responses to the representations until the plan had moved on irrevocably. In particular (by omission or neglect) the council's elected Members were not given the opportunity to give proper and timely consideration of the representations made to the council by residents and other interested parties in response to the consultation which took place in July 2013. Councillors did not see anything other than summaries until March 2014 at the same meeting they were being asked to approve the local plan. Since it is the role of officers to advise and members to decide this seems inadequate / unsatisfactory. With such a process it is impossible for those who made representations to have confidence that due consideration was given to their concerns.

-Using the delay of consideration of representations as a tool to enable pre-empting of the local plan by enabling developers and landowners to submit applications for development of the southern areas to which numerous and serious objections and representations had been lodged and not resolved. Officers were afforded the ability to press on with master planning for the areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash in face of the objections.

-The consideration of new ONS statistics on population growth was delayed which has led to more land and housing being allocated than what is actually required. This will require the loss of more precious agricultural land than is really necessary).
Operating a regime where the threat of "pre-determination" was used in contravention of the spirit of the Localism Act as a means of (unintentionally or not) of quelling proper debate in council, and councillor involvement in community debate on planning issues. A culture was established which prevented the healthy debate of planning matters (in contravention of the provisions set out in the plain English Guide to the Localism Act 2011). The approach adopted by the Council to "predetermination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption. By doing so it is doubtful that it has complied with the letter of Section 25 of the Localities Act.
*In summary the Council has not followed the correct processes and has not properly engaged with its consultees and its community. It is Save Warwick's opinion that the Council has been reluctant to accept the role of community in the formulation of planning strategy, and in doing so may have opened itself to the possibility of legal challenge about the process it has followed.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 66848

Received: 03/07/2014

Respondent: Patricia Hollis

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

There have been serious shortcomings in the processes the Council has used in the development of the Plan. The Council has not properly considered the representations on the Local Plan submitted by residents and the community.

*The Plan does not comply in terms of the letter and spirit of the NPPF and the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
*The Council's approach to "pre-determination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption.

*It is the view of Save Warwick that the processes undertaken in the course of the preparation of the local plan by the District Council denied the public, councillors and other consultees genuine participation in the plan making process by:-
-Ignoring representations and / or delaying the council's responses to the representations until the plan had moved on irrevocably. In particular (by omission or neglect) the council's elected Members were not given the opportunity to give proper and timely consideration of the representations made to the council by residents and other interested parties in response to the consultation which took place in July 2013. Councillors did not see anything other than summaries until March 2014 at the same meeting they were being asked to approve the local plan. Since it is the role of officers to advise and members to decide this seems inadequate / unsatisfactory. With such a process it is impossible for those who made representations to have confidence that due consideration was given to their concerns.

-Using the delay of consideration of representations as a tool to enable pre-empting of the local plan by enabling developers and landowners to submit applications for development of the southern areas to which numerous and serious objections and representations had been lodged and not resolved. Officers were afforded the ability to press on with master planning for the areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash in face of the objections.

-The consideration of new ONS statistics on population growth was delayed which has led to more land and housing being allocated than what is actually required. This will require the loss of more precious agricultural land than is really necessary).
Operating a regime where the threat of "pre-determination" was used in contravention of the spirit of the Localism Act as a means of (unintentionally or not) of quelling proper debate in council, and councillor involvement in community debate on planning issues. A culture was established which prevented the healthy debate of planning matters (in contravention of the provisions set out in the plain English Guide to the Localism Act 2011). The approach adopted by the Council to "predetermination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption. By doing so it is doubtful that it has complied with the letter of Section 25 of the Localities Act.
*In summary the Council has not followed the correct processes and has not properly engaged with its consultees and its community. It is Save Warwick's opinion that the Council has been reluctant to accept the role of community in the formulation of planning strategy, and in doing so may have opened itself to the possibility of legal challenge about the process it has followed.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 66905

Received: 03/07/2014

Respondent: Colin Sharp

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

There have been serious shortcomings in the processes the Council has used in the development of the Plan. The Council has not properly considered the representations on the Local Plan submitted by residents and the community.

*The Plan does not comply in terms of the letter and spirit of the NPPF and the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
*The Council's approach to "pre-determination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption.

*It is the view of Save Warwick that the processes undertaken in the course of the preparation of the local plan by the District Council denied the public, councillors and other consultees genuine participation in the plan making process by:-
-Ignoring representations and / or delaying the council's responses to the representations until the plan had moved on irrevocably. In particular (by omission or neglect) the council's elected Members were not given the opportunity to give proper and timely consideration of the representations made to the council by residents and other interested parties in response to the consultation which took place in July 2013. Councillors did not see anything other than summaries until March 2014 at the same meeting they were being asked to approve the local plan. Since it is the role of officers to advise and members to decide this seems inadequate / unsatisfactory. With such a process it is impossible for those who made representations to have confidence that due consideration was given to their concerns.

-Using the delay of consideration of representations as a tool to enable pre-empting of the local plan by enabling developers and landowners to submit applications for development of the southern areas to which numerous and serious objections and representations had been lodged and not resolved. Officers were afforded the ability to press on with master planning for the areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash in face of the objections.

-The consideration of new ONS statistics on population growth was delayed which has led to more land and housing being allocated than what is actually required. This will require the loss of more precious agricultural land than is really necessary).
Operating a regime where the threat of "pre-determination" was used in contravention of the spirit of the Localism Act as a means of (unintentionally or not) of quelling proper debate in council, and councillor involvement in community debate on planning issues. A culture was established which prevented the healthy debate of planning matters (in contravention of the provisions set out in the plain English Guide to the Localism Act 2011). The approach adopted by the Council to "predetermination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption. By doing so it is doubtful that it has complied with the letter of Section 25 of the Localities Act.
*In summary the Council has not followed the correct processes and has not properly engaged with its consultees and its community. It is Save Warwick's opinion that the Council has been reluctant to accept the role of community in the formulation of planning strategy, and in doing so may have opened itself to the possibility of legal challenge about the process it has followed.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 66913

Received: 03/07/2014

Respondent: Ms Alison Cox

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

There have been serious shortcomings in the processes the Council has used in the development of the Plan. The Council has not properly considered the representations on the Local Plan submitted by residents and the community.

*The Plan does not comply in terms of the letter and spirit of the NPPF and the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
*The Council's approach to "pre-determination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption.

*It is the view of Save Warwick that the processes undertaken in the course of the preparation of the local plan by the District Council denied the public, councillors and other consultees genuine participation in the plan making process by:-
-Ignoring representations and / or delaying the council's responses to the representations until the plan had moved on irrevocably. In particular (by omission or neglect) the council's elected Members were not given the opportunity to give proper and timely consideration of the representations made to the council by residents and other interested parties in response to the consultation which took place in July 2013. Councillors did not see anything other than summaries until March 2014 at the same meeting they were being asked to approve the local plan. Since it is the role of officers to advise and members to decide this seems inadequate / unsatisfactory. With such a process it is impossible for those who made representations to have confidence that due consideration was given to their concerns.

-Using the delay of consideration of representations as a tool to enable pre-empting of the local plan by enabling developers and landowners to submit applications for development of the southern areas to which numerous and serious objections and representations had been lodged and not resolved. Officers were afforded the ability to press on with master planning for the areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash in face of the objections.

-The consideration of new ONS statistics on population growth was delayed which has led to more land and housing being allocated than what is actually required. This will require the loss of more precious agricultural land than is really necessary).
Operating a regime where the threat of "pre-determination" was used in contravention of the spirit of the Localism Act as a means of (unintentionally or not) of quelling proper debate in council, and councillor involvement in community debate on planning issues. A culture was established which prevented the healthy debate of planning matters (in contravention of the provisions set out in the plain English Guide to the Localism Act 2011). The approach adopted by the Council to "predetermination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption. By doing so it is doubtful that it has complied with the letter of Section 25 of the Localities Act.
*In summary the Council has not followed the correct processes and has not properly engaged with its consultees and its community. It is Save Warwick's opinion that the Council has been reluctant to accept the role of community in the formulation of planning strategy, and in doing so may have opened itself to the possibility of legal challenge about the process it has followed.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 66921

Received: 03/07/2014

Respondent: Alison Kelly

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

There have been serious shortcomings in the processes the Council has used in the development of the Plan. The Council has not properly considered the representations on the Local Plan submitted by residents and the community.

*The Plan does not comply in terms of the letter and spirit of the NPPF and the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
*The Council's approach to "pre-determination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption.

*It is the view of Save Warwick that the processes undertaken in the course of the preparation of the local plan by the District Council denied the public, councillors and other consultees genuine participation in the plan making process by:-
-Ignoring representations and / or delaying the council's responses to the representations until the plan had moved on irrevocably. In particular (by omission or neglect) the council's elected Members were not given the opportunity to give proper and timely consideration of the representations made to the council by residents and other interested parties in response to the consultation which took place in July 2013. Councillors did not see anything other than summaries until March 2014 at the same meeting they were being asked to approve the local plan. Since it is the role of officers to advise and members to decide this seems inadequate / unsatisfactory. With such a process it is impossible for those who made representations to have confidence that due consideration was given to their concerns.

-Using the delay of consideration of representations as a tool to enable pre-empting of the local plan by enabling developers and landowners to submit applications for development of the southern areas to which numerous and serious objections and representations had been lodged and not resolved. Officers were afforded the ability to press on with master planning for the areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash in face of the objections.

-The consideration of new ONS statistics on population growth was delayed which has led to more land and housing being allocated than what is actually required. This will require the loss of more precious agricultural land than is really necessary).
Operating a regime where the threat of "pre-determination" was used in contravention of the spirit of the Localism Act as a means of (unintentionally or not) of quelling proper debate in council, and councillor involvement in community debate on planning issues. A culture was established which prevented the healthy debate of planning matters (in contravention of the provisions set out in the plain English Guide to the Localism Act 2011). The approach adopted by the Council to "predetermination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption. By doing so it is doubtful that it has complied with the letter of Section 25 of the Localities Act.
*In summary the Council has not followed the correct processes and has not properly engaged with its consultees and its community. It is Save Warwick's opinion that the Council has been reluctant to accept the role of community in the formulation of planning strategy, and in doing so may have opened itself to the possibility of legal challenge about the process it has followed.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 66929

Received: 03/07/2014

Respondent: Andrew Cliffe

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

There have been serious shortcomings in the processes the Council has used in the development of the Plan. The Council has not properly considered the representations on the Local Plan submitted by residents and the community.

*The Plan does not comply in terms of the letter and spirit of the NPPF and the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
*The Council's approach to "pre-determination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption.

*It is the view of Save Warwick that the processes undertaken in the course of the preparation of the local plan by the District Council denied the public, councillors and other consultees genuine participation in the plan making process by:-
-Ignoring representations and / or delaying the council's responses to the representations until the plan had moved on irrevocably. In particular (by omission or neglect) the council's elected Members were not given the opportunity to give proper and timely consideration of the representations made to the council by residents and other interested parties in response to the consultation which took place in July 2013. Councillors did not see anything other than summaries until March 2014 at the same meeting they were being asked to approve the local plan. Since it is the role of officers to advise and members to decide this seems inadequate / unsatisfactory. With such a process it is impossible for those who made representations to have confidence that due consideration was given to their concerns.

-Using the delay of consideration of representations as a tool to enable pre-empting of the local plan by enabling developers and landowners to submit applications for development of the southern areas to which numerous and serious objections and representations had been lodged and not resolved. Officers were afforded the ability to press on with master planning for the areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash in face of the objections.

-The consideration of new ONS statistics on population growth was delayed which has led to more land and housing being allocated than what is actually required. This will require the loss of more precious agricultural land than is really necessary).
Operating a regime where the threat of "pre-determination" was used in contravention of the spirit of the Localism Act as a means of (unintentionally or not) of quelling proper debate in council, and councillor involvement in community debate on planning issues. A culture was established which prevented the healthy debate of planning matters (in contravention of the provisions set out in the plain English Guide to the Localism Act 2011). The approach adopted by the Council to "predetermination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption. By doing so it is doubtful that it has complied with the letter of Section 25 of the Localities Act.
*In summary the Council has not followed the correct processes and has not properly engaged with its consultees and its community. It is Save Warwick's opinion that the Council has been reluctant to accept the role of community in the formulation of planning strategy, and in doing so may have opened itself to the possibility of legal challenge about the process it has followed.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 66937

Received: 03/07/2014

Respondent: Angelo Cugini

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

There have been serious shortcomings in the processes the Council has used in the development of the Plan. The Council has not properly considered the representations on the Local Plan submitted by residents and the community.

*The Plan does not comply in terms of the letter and spirit of the NPPF and the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
*The Council's approach to "pre-determination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption.

*It is the view of Save Warwick that the processes undertaken in the course of the preparation of the local plan by the District Council denied the public, councillors and other consultees genuine participation in the plan making process by:-
-Ignoring representations and / or delaying the council's responses to the representations until the plan had moved on irrevocably. In particular (by omission or neglect) the council's elected Members were not given the opportunity to give proper and timely consideration of the representations made to the council by residents and other interested parties in response to the consultation which took place in July 2013. Councillors did not see anything other than summaries until March 2014 at the same meeting they were being asked to approve the local plan. Since it is the role of officers to advise and members to decide this seems inadequate / unsatisfactory. With such a process it is impossible for those who made representations to have confidence that due consideration was given to their concerns.

-Using the delay of consideration of representations as a tool to enable pre-empting of the local plan by enabling developers and landowners to submit applications for development of the southern areas to which numerous and serious objections and representations had been lodged and not resolved. Officers were afforded the ability to press on with master planning for the areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash in face of the objections.

-The consideration of new ONS statistics on population growth was delayed which has led to more land and housing being allocated than what is actually required. This will require the loss of more precious agricultural land than is really necessary).
Operating a regime where the threat of "pre-determination" was used in contravention of the spirit of the Localism Act as a means of (unintentionally or not) of quelling proper debate in council, and councillor involvement in community debate on planning issues. A culture was established which prevented the healthy debate of planning matters (in contravention of the provisions set out in the plain English Guide to the Localism Act 2011). The approach adopted by the Council to "predetermination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption. By doing so it is doubtful that it has complied with the letter of Section 25 of the Localities Act.
*In summary the Council has not followed the correct processes and has not properly engaged with its consultees and its community. It is Save Warwick's opinion that the Council has been reluctant to accept the role of community in the formulation of planning strategy, and in doing so may have opened itself to the possibility of legal challenge about the process it has followed.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 66945

Received: 03/07/2014

Respondent: Barbara Groves

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

There have been serious shortcomings in the processes the Council has used in the development of the Plan. The Council has not properly considered the representations on the Local Plan submitted by residents and the community.

*The Plan does not comply in terms of the letter and spirit of the NPPF and the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
*The Council's approach to "pre-determination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption.

*It is the view of Save Warwick that the processes undertaken in the course of the preparation of the local plan by the District Council denied the public, councillors and other consultees genuine participation in the plan making process by:-
-Ignoring representations and / or delaying the council's responses to the representations until the plan had moved on irrevocably. In particular (by omission or neglect) the council's elected Members were not given the opportunity to give proper and timely consideration of the representations made to the council by residents and other interested parties in response to the consultation which took place in July 2013. Councillors did not see anything other than summaries until March 2014 at the same meeting they were being asked to approve the local plan. Since it is the role of officers to advise and members to decide this seems inadequate / unsatisfactory. With such a process it is impossible for those who made representations to have confidence that due consideration was given to their concerns.

-Using the delay of consideration of representations as a tool to enable pre-empting of the local plan by enabling developers and landowners to submit applications for development of the southern areas to which numerous and serious objections and representations had been lodged and not resolved. Officers were afforded the ability to press on with master planning for the areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash in face of the objections.

-The consideration of new ONS statistics on population growth was delayed which has led to more land and housing being allocated than what is actually required. This will require the loss of more precious agricultural land than is really necessary).
Operating a regime where the threat of "pre-determination" was used in contravention of the spirit of the Localism Act as a means of (unintentionally or not) of quelling proper debate in council, and councillor involvement in community debate on planning issues. A culture was established which prevented the healthy debate of planning matters (in contravention of the provisions set out in the plain English Guide to the Localism Act 2011). The approach adopted by the Council to "predetermination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption. By doing so it is doubtful that it has complied with the letter of Section 25 of the Localities Act.
*In summary the Council has not followed the correct processes and has not properly engaged with its consultees and its community. It is Save Warwick's opinion that the Council has been reluctant to accept the role of community in the formulation of planning strategy, and in doing so may have opened itself to the possibility of legal challenge about the process it has followed.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 66953

Received: 03/07/2014

Respondent: Professor Bob Ireland

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

There have been serious shortcomings in the processes the Council has used in the development of the Plan. The Council has not properly considered the representations on the Local Plan submitted by residents and the community.

*The Plan does not comply in terms of the letter and spirit of the NPPF and the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
*The Council's approach to "pre-determination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption.

*It is the view of Save Warwick that the processes undertaken in the course of the preparation of the local plan by the District Council denied the public, councillors and other consultees genuine participation in the plan making process by:-
-Ignoring representations and / or delaying the council's responses to the representations until the plan had moved on irrevocably. In particular (by omission or neglect) the council's elected Members were not given the opportunity to give proper and timely consideration of the representations made to the council by residents and other interested parties in response to the consultation which took place in July 2013. Councillors did not see anything other than summaries until March 2014 at the same meeting they were being asked to approve the local plan. Since it is the role of officers to advise and members to decide this seems inadequate / unsatisfactory. With such a process it is impossible for those who made representations to have confidence that due consideration was given to their concerns.

-Using the delay of consideration of representations as a tool to enable pre-empting of the local plan by enabling developers and landowners to submit applications for development of the southern areas to which numerous and serious objections and representations had been lodged and not resolved. Officers were afforded the ability to press on with master planning for the areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash in face of the objections.

-The consideration of new ONS statistics on population growth was delayed which has led to more land and housing being allocated than what is actually required. This will require the loss of more precious agricultural land than is really necessary).
Operating a regime where the threat of "pre-determination" was used in contravention of the spirit of the Localism Act as a means of (unintentionally or not) of quelling proper debate in council, and councillor involvement in community debate on planning issues. A culture was established which prevented the healthy debate of planning matters (in contravention of the provisions set out in the plain English Guide to the Localism Act 2011). The approach adopted by the Council to "predetermination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption. By doing so it is doubtful that it has complied with the letter of Section 25 of the Localities Act.
*In summary the Council has not followed the correct processes and has not properly engaged with its consultees and its community. It is Save Warwick's opinion that the Council has been reluctant to accept the role of community in the formulation of planning strategy, and in doing so may have opened itself to the possibility of legal challenge about the process it has followed.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 66961

Received: 03/07/2014

Respondent: Christopher Paden

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

There have been serious shortcomings in the processes the Council has used in the development of the Plan. The Council has not properly considered the representations on the Local Plan submitted by residents and the community.

*The Plan does not comply in terms of the letter and spirit of the NPPF and the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
*The Council's approach to "pre-determination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption.

*It is the view of Save Warwick that the processes undertaken in the course of the preparation of the local plan by the District Council denied the public, councillors and other consultees genuine participation in the plan making process by:-
-Ignoring representations and / or delaying the council's responses to the representations until the plan had moved on irrevocably. In particular (by omission or neglect) the council's elected Members were not given the opportunity to give proper and timely consideration of the representations made to the council by residents and other interested parties in response to the consultation which took place in July 2013. Councillors did not see anything other than summaries until March 2014 at the same meeting they were being asked to approve the local plan. Since it is the role of officers to advise and members to decide this seems inadequate / unsatisfactory. With such a process it is impossible for those who made representations to have confidence that due consideration was given to their concerns.

-Using the delay of consideration of representations as a tool to enable pre-empting of the local plan by enabling developers and landowners to submit applications for development of the southern areas to which numerous and serious objections and representations had been lodged and not resolved. Officers were afforded the ability to press on with master planning for the areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash in face of the objections.

-The consideration of new ONS statistics on population growth was delayed which has led to more land and housing being allocated than what is actually required. This will require the loss of more precious agricultural land than is really necessary).
Operating a regime where the threat of "pre-determination" was used in contravention of the spirit of the Localism Act as a means of (unintentionally or not) of quelling proper debate in council, and councillor involvement in community debate on planning issues. A culture was established which prevented the healthy debate of planning matters (in contravention of the provisions set out in the plain English Guide to the Localism Act 2011). The approach adopted by the Council to "predetermination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption. By doing so it is doubtful that it has complied with the letter of Section 25 of the Localities Act.
*In summary the Council has not followed the correct processes and has not properly engaged with its consultees and its community. It is Save Warwick's opinion that the Council has been reluctant to accept the role of community in the formulation of planning strategy, and in doing so may have opened itself to the possibility of legal challenge about the process it has followed.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 66969

Received: 03/07/2014

Respondent: Elizabeth Cliffe

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

There have been serious shortcomings in the processes the Council has used in the development of the Plan. The Council has not properly considered the representations on the Local Plan submitted by residents and the community.

*The Plan does not comply in terms of the letter and spirit of the NPPF and the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
*The Council's approach to "pre-determination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption.

*It is the view of Save Warwick that the processes undertaken in the course of the preparation of the local plan by the District Council denied the public, councillors and other consultees genuine participation in the plan making process by:-
-Ignoring representations and / or delaying the council's responses to the representations until the plan had moved on irrevocably. In particular (by omission or neglect) the council's elected Members were not given the opportunity to give proper and timely consideration of the representations made to the council by residents and other interested parties in response to the consultation which took place in July 2013. Councillors did not see anything other than summaries until March 2014 at the same meeting they were being asked to approve the local plan. Since it is the role of officers to advise and members to decide this seems inadequate / unsatisfactory. With such a process it is impossible for those who made representations to have confidence that due consideration was given to their concerns.

-Using the delay of consideration of representations as a tool to enable pre-empting of the local plan by enabling developers and landowners to submit applications for development of the southern areas to which numerous and serious objections and representations had been lodged and not resolved. Officers were afforded the ability to press on with master planning for the areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash in face of the objections.

-The consideration of new ONS statistics on population growth was delayed which has led to more land and housing being allocated than what is actually required. This will require the loss of more precious agricultural land than is really necessary).
Operating a regime where the threat of "pre-determination" was used in contravention of the spirit of the Localism Act as a means of (unintentionally or not) of quelling proper debate in council, and councillor involvement in community debate on planning issues. A culture was established which prevented the healthy debate of planning matters (in contravention of the provisions set out in the plain English Guide to the Localism Act 2011). The approach adopted by the Council to "predetermination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption. By doing so it is doubtful that it has complied with the letter of Section 25 of the Localities Act.
*In summary the Council has not followed the correct processes and has not properly engaged with its consultees and its community. It is Save Warwick's opinion that the Council has been reluctant to accept the role of community in the formulation of planning strategy, and in doing so may have opened itself to the possibility of legal challenge about the process it has followed.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 66977

Received: 03/07/2014

Respondent: Mrs Kay Cugini

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

There have been serious shortcomings in the processes the Council has used in the development of the Plan. The Council has not properly considered the representations on the Local Plan submitted by residents and the community.

*The Plan does not comply in terms of the letter and spirit of the NPPF and the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
*The Council's approach to "pre-determination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption.

*It is the view of Save Warwick that the processes undertaken in the course of the preparation of the local plan by the District Council denied the public, councillors and other consultees genuine participation in the plan making process by:-
-Ignoring representations and / or delaying the council's responses to the representations until the plan had moved on irrevocably. In particular (by omission or neglect) the council's elected Members were not given the opportunity to give proper and timely consideration of the representations made to the council by residents and other interested parties in response to the consultation which took place in July 2013. Councillors did not see anything other than summaries until March 2014 at the same meeting they were being asked to approve the local plan. Since it is the role of officers to advise and members to decide this seems inadequate / unsatisfactory. With such a process it is impossible for those who made representations to have confidence that due consideration was given to their concerns.

-Using the delay of consideration of representations as a tool to enable pre-empting of the local plan by enabling developers and landowners to submit applications for development of the southern areas to which numerous and serious objections and representations had been lodged and not resolved. Officers were afforded the ability to press on with master planning for the areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash in face of the objections.

-The consideration of new ONS statistics on population growth was delayed which has led to more land and housing being allocated than what is actually required. This will require the loss of more precious agricultural land than is really necessary).
Operating a regime where the threat of "pre-determination" was used in contravention of the spirit of the Localism Act as a means of (unintentionally or not) of quelling proper debate in council, and councillor involvement in community debate on planning issues. A culture was established which prevented the healthy debate of planning matters (in contravention of the provisions set out in the plain English Guide to the Localism Act 2011). The approach adopted by the Council to "predetermination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption. By doing so it is doubtful that it has complied with the letter of Section 25 of the Localities Act.
*In summary the Council has not followed the correct processes and has not properly engaged with its consultees and its community. It is Save Warwick's opinion that the Council has been reluctant to accept the role of community in the formulation of planning strategy, and in doing so may have opened itself to the possibility of legal challenge about the process it has followed.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Publication Draft

Representation ID: 66985

Received: 03/07/2014

Respondent: Mr David Ramsbottom

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

There have been serious shortcomings in the processes the Council has used in the development of the Plan. The Council has not properly considered the representations on the Local Plan submitted by residents and the community.

*The Plan does not comply in terms of the letter and spirit of the NPPF and the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
*The Council's approach to "pre-determination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption.

*It is the view of Save Warwick that the processes undertaken in the course of the preparation of the local plan by the District Council denied the public, councillors and other consultees genuine participation in the plan making process by:-
-Ignoring representations and / or delaying the council's responses to the representations until the plan had moved on irrevocably. In particular (by omission or neglect) the council's elected Members were not given the opportunity to give proper and timely consideration of the representations made to the council by residents and other interested parties in response to the consultation which took place in July 2013. Councillors did not see anything other than summaries until March 2014 at the same meeting they were being asked to approve the local plan. Since it is the role of officers to advise and members to decide this seems inadequate / unsatisfactory. With such a process it is impossible for those who made representations to have confidence that due consideration was given to their concerns.

-Using the delay of consideration of representations as a tool to enable pre-empting of the local plan by enabling developers and landowners to submit applications for development of the southern areas to which numerous and serious objections and representations had been lodged and not resolved. Officers were afforded the ability to press on with master planning for the areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash in face of the objections.

-The consideration of new ONS statistics on population growth was delayed which has led to more land and housing being allocated than what is actually required. This will require the loss of more precious agricultural land than is really necessary).
Operating a regime where the threat of "pre-determination" was used in contravention of the spirit of the Localism Act as a means of (unintentionally or not) of quelling proper debate in council, and councillor involvement in community debate on planning issues. A culture was established which prevented the healthy debate of planning matters (in contravention of the provisions set out in the plain English Guide to the Localism Act 2011). The approach adopted by the Council to "predetermination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption. By doing so it is doubtful that it has complied with the letter of Section 25 of the Localities Act.
*In summary the Council has not followed the correct processes and has not properly engaged with its consultees and its community. It is Save Warwick's opinion that the Council has been reluctant to accept the role of community in the formulation of planning strategy, and in doing so may have opened itself to the possibility of legal challenge about the process it has followed.

Full text:

See attached