H04 Red House Farm

Object

Representation ID: 64836

Received: 13/06/2014

Respondent: Mr Anthony Preston

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

I do not believe that the WDC has taken into account the effect for all the residents on the existing urban fringe. Example, Eden Court, The Crest. Around 39 residents treasured tranquil landscape balcony views will be devastated. This area has an abundance of wild life nesting in hedge rows trees and fields. My quality of life at home will be gone. My back garden is a farm in the country side, if this development is passed all this will be lost

Object

Representation ID: 65257

Received: 25/06/2014

Respondent: Dr Nick Kaijaks

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

It is specious to describe building on Green Belt land as "assist[ing] in the regeneration of the area" (qv. DS18). DS11/H04 is clearly encroachment, contradicting NPPF for Green Belt land, leaving a weak boundary, easier to breach in future.

The Plan does not explain infrastructural sustainability or loss of amenity. DS4 requires that housing should be close to sites of employment, with access to community facilities. DS11/H04 is not consistent with either. Building new houses may allow the Council to say "look, this ward is statistically less deprived than it was", but dilution of deprivation is not the same as regeneration.

Object

Representation ID: 65479

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Mr Paul Want

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Green Belt land such as this should only be built on in exceptional circumstances and will encourage more Urban Sprawl in the area (something Green Belt land is there specifically to protect against.)
For a relatively small number of new homes it will cause a blight on the existing landscape that forms such a large part of what makes the area attractive to live in.

Object

Representation ID: 65748

Received: 25/06/2014

Respondent: Mrs Sally Bullock

Legally compliant? No

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Warwick District Council has not fully explained why brownfield alternatives cannot be used instead of the land at Red House Farm (H04). It is suggested that some ecological studies have not been undertaken. This breach of the green belt will make further development likely. There is no need to plan for the regeneration of Lillington therefore this allocation is not justified/ necessary.

Object

Representation ID: 66170

Received: 07/06/2014

Respondent: Mrs Eleanor Hucklesby

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

I object to this part of the plan. For an area which will suffer knock on effects of HS2, use of more greenbelt for development seems unwarranted.

I would like to know how WDC has proven that there are exceptional circumstances to justify re defining Greenbelt in this area.

Object

Representation ID: 66284

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Mr H E Johnson

Agent: Bond Dickinson

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Support allocation of Red House Farm. It will assist in the Council's aim of regenerating Lillington one of the most deprived wards in Warwickshire. However object to proposed number of dwelli8ngs on the site - The net developable area of the existing proposed allocation at Red House Farm, excluding the Glebe Farm land which currently forms part of this allocation, is nearer 300. Increasing the number of houses will maximise and enhance the regenerative benefits that can be provided. Excluding the Glebe Farm allocation, which is not necessary or desirable given its more prominent position and extending the Red House Farm allocation can deliver a total of around 450 dwellings. Extended site would enhance regeneration benefits provide additional benefits including good quality open spoace, a new defendable green belt boundary, increased scope for public transport, more options for walking and cycling together with a bridge over the canal to connect to the Tow Path (all within the ownership of Mr Johnson). Also object to the reliance on two large sites (namely HO1 and HO2) for a significant proportion of the site allocation's housing delivery (around 43.5%)

Object

Representation ID: 66327

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Mr Richard Taulbut

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

DS19 proposes release of Green Belt land at Red House Farm. Release of such land is only justified in exceptional circumstances. No such circumstances have been given.
At DS11 and DS18 it is stated that this land will be used for 250 houses in support of the regeneration of Lillington. However, the same proportion of affordable houses (40%) is proposed as in every other part of the district. Therefore the need cannot be seen as exceptional. Repair and renewal of social housing is the every-day business of local authorities. It is not exceptional and cannot justify release of Greenbelt.

Object

Representation ID: 66430

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Mr Andrew Adams-Green

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

WDC not proven exceptional circumstances for proposal
There is no regeneration plan of Lillington
Policy DS18 is highly inaccurate
Consultation has been patchy and ineffective
Loss of recreational amenity 'riding school'
No explanation of why brownfield sites could not be used.
Ecological and environmental studies have not been carried out.
Represents only 1.5% of total housing needed but has a huge impact on the landscape.

Object

Representation ID: 66625

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Dr Diana Taulbut

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Red House Farm allocation should be revisited as it is unsound . The following matters are all causes of concern relating to its current inclusion in the Plan.
- Policy DS11 (H04) fails to mention that Red House Farm is actually greenbelt and calls it "green-field". This is highly misleading and would have misled anyone considering this policy in isolation.
- H04 is contrary to NPPF para's 73 and 74 as H04 contains the riding schools grazing fields. The riding school is a valuable recreational asset that also provides employment opportunities. The plan makes no provisions for the replacement of this facility.
- H04 is contrary to the purposes of including land in the green belt as it will not "safeguard the countryside from encroachment". This land is also of valuable agricultural quality and should be preserved for food security reasons.
- H04 is contrary to the NPPF (paragraph 80) as no specific consideration has been given to the use of brownfield sites elsewhere. Sites in Lillington that should be considered include the Old Round Oak school and the URC on the Cubbington Road (both of which are closer to the shops etc. than Red House Farm).
- The Council has not demonstrated the "exceptional circumstances" and does not make a coherent or sound argument for the removal of this land from the green belt. The owners willingness to release the land is not "exceptional".
- The intended re-location of the green belt boundary is flawed as it has no physical features to reinforce this line. Therefore it could not be considered a permanent boundary. There is no indication that if this new boundary were put in place that it would not be subject to change at the end of the next plan period.
- The District Council has not given any consideration or weight to the fact that this proposal will damage the remaining green belt(its openness and permanence would be compromised).
- A portion of the area include in allocation H04 was not included in the green belt study.
-The area at Red House Farm is in an area of tranquillity and should be defended as such . The Local Plan fails in its obligation to identify and defend such areas.
- The consultation on the allocation/ plan has been inadequate, the terminology for the allocation is also mis-leading , it should have been called Campion Hills for local people to recognise it properly.
- The allocation is founded on incomplete studies. Full wildlife assessments have not been conducted . Some 'red-list' species are present and have legal protection.
- It is stated that this allocation will support the regeneration of Lillington. It is suggested that Lillington is not as badly deprived as argued and that to use this as a justification for the allocation of so many houses is wrong/ unsound. Much of Lillington does not require 'regeneration' as it is perfectly acceptable as it already is.

Object

Representation ID: 66704

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Ms Beth Forster

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Exceptional circumstances for Red House Farm have not be established. This area provide tranquillity and recreation. the riding school, will suffer noise and pollution. the proposals will have a permanent and disastrous impact on the landscape and will lead to urban sprawl and loss of open, natural space.

These houses are not required anyway as the latest ONS figures demonstrate that fewer homes are needed than had been projected

Support

Representation ID: 66729

Received: 25/06/2014

Respondent: Sir Thomas White's Charity & King Henry VIII Endowed Trust

Agent: Stansgate Planning

The inclusion of this Green Belt is fully justified as it will facilitate the regeneration of one of the most deprived neighbourhoods in Warwickshire. The new housing development will bring new life into the area and provide enhanced amenity spaces, improvements to local facilities and support for existing local services and facilities.

Object

Representation ID: 66849

Received: 25/06/2014

Respondent: Protect Lillington Green Belt [Petition]

Number of people: 555

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Red House Farm allocation should be revisited as it is unsound . The following matters are all causes of concern relating to its current inclusion in the Plan.
- Policy DS11 (H04) fails to mention that Red House Farm is actually greenbelt and calls it "green-field". This is highly misleading and would have misled anyone considering this policy in isolation.
- H04 is contrary to NPPF para's 73 and 74 as H04 contains the riding schools grazing fields. The riding school is a valuable recreational asset that also provides employment opportunities. The plan makes no provisions for the replacement of this facility.
- H04 is contrary to the purposes of including land in the green belt as it will not "safeguard the countryside from encroachment". This land is also of valuable agricultural quality and should be preserved for food security reasons.
- H04 is contrary to the NPPF (paragraph 80) as no specific consideration has been given to the use of brownfield sites elsewhere. Sites in Lillington that should be considered include the Old Round Oak school and the URC on the Cubbington Road (both of which are closer to the shops etc. than Red House Farm).
- The Council has not demonstrated the "exceptional circumstances" and does not make a coherent or sound argument for the removal of this land from the green belt. The owners willingness to release the land is not "exceptional".
- The intended re-location of the green belt boundary is flawed as it has no physical features to reinforce this line. Therefore it could not be considered a permanent boundary. There is no indication that if this new boundary were put in place that it would not be subject to change at the end of the next plan period.
- The District Council has not given any consideration or weight to the fact that this proposal will damage the remaining green belt(its openness and permanence would be compromised).
- A portion of the area include in allocation H04 was not included in the green belt study.
-The area at Red House Farm is in an area of tranquillity and should be defended as such . The Local Plan fails in its obligation to identify and defend such areas.
- The consultation on the allocation/ plan has been inadequate, the terminology for the allocation is also mis-leading , it should have been called Campion Hills for local people to recognise it properly.
- The allocation is founded on incomplete studies. Full wildlife assessments have not been conducted . Some 'red-list' species are present and have legal protection.
- It is stated that this allocation will support the regeneration of Lillington. It is suggested that Lillington is not as badly deprived as argued and that to use this as a justification for the allocation of so many houses is wrong/ unsound. Much of Lillington does not require 'regeneration' as it is perfectly acceptable as it already is.