Kingswood

Support

Representation ID: 65651

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Lapworth Parish Council

DS11 Lapworth Parish Council believes that the consultation and review processes carried out by Warwick District Council have been thorough, professional and fair as far as the housing allocations for Kingswood/Lapworth are concerned. Reasonable arguments have been listened to and investigated with site visits. There were considerable problems at the outset about communications with the Parish Council, and even more so with residents. They were very poor and caused some ill-feeling. However in the course of the process it has become clear that reasonable objections were considered and investigated, with the result that the final plan reflects many of the comments made. Whilst not all residents are happy with all the outcomes, we feel that the consultation periods and the meetings at the Village Hall and in Warwick, plus the clear willingness to accept changes where well-justified, are evidence of open-mindedness and good practice. The Parish Council commends the process and the resulting decisions in the Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 65857

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Business Flats Ltd

Agent: Mr Will Charlton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Plan does not provide for sufficient units within the identified growth villages. Due to the tight village boundary there is little or no opportunity for windfall sites to come forward to assist in meeting this target. It has been acknowledged that growth villages should accomodate at least a 20% increase in dwellings, only 2 of the villages with the others including Kingswood substantially underproviding. Kingswood has a good range and number of local services, including a main line station therefore has the facilities to support a larger number of dwellings. Given how the village has historically developed it is contended that a dispersed strategy would be the most appropriate way forward. In order to acheive this further sites should be considered for allocation and the growth village envelope should be revised to include small parcels removing them from the green belt. This would also allow small windfall sites including those which are less than 5 units and cannot be formally allocated to come forward without impacting on the openness and purposes for including land in the green belt. It is considered that a number of sites including Kingswood site no6 were too readily dismissed.
This site was dismissed on the grounds of flooding. Whilst it is acknowledged that the sites western section (including the indicative access) is within flood zones 2 and 3 and remainder of the site is within flood zone 1 and therefore provides sufficient land to accomodate residential units. subject to levels and the need not to raise the ground level the area within flood zone 2 and 3 could be used for car parking and open space. An alternative access point could be the existing eastern vehicle access point which currently serves the 12 adjacent properties. In addition earthworks and re- profiling could provide flood and surface water capacity. It is contended that with appropriate design and layout of the site the construction of properties albeit potentially less the 5 units, would not cause or exacerbate flooding in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 65954

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Mr stuart weir

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Plan gives incorrect and flawed descriptions of land eg non separation of parishes/communities
No consistency of approach or with NPPF with regard to Green Belt/flooding.
Building in flood plain not consistent with national or LP policy. Decisions taken without substantiation or consultation with EA etc.
Development not kept within locally known boundaries of Lapworth
Initial consultation referred to Kingswood and Lapworth; assumption therefore that Rowington did not fall within proposed development area. Majority of consultation meetings took place in Lapworth not Rowington

Object

Representation ID: 66038

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: A C Lloyd Homes Ltd

Agent: Stansgate Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Policy DS11 proposes the allocation of Kingswood- Meadow House and Kingswood- Kingswood Farm for residential development. We find the proposed allocations, and the removal of the land from the Green Belt to facilitate that development to be sound and appropriate.

Kingswood is a sustainable settlement which provides a good range of local services and facilities to its residents.Moreover the village is served by
regular public transport, both bus and train, making access to higher tier settlements feasible without reliance on the private car.

We find the proposal to release land from the Green Belt at this point in time necessary to ensure the future success of the settlement. It is only by releasing land that the village will be able to meet its own housing needs, both affordable and market.

Land at Meadow House and Kingswood Farm is available and suitable to meet the development needs of the settlement.

We find that the proposed allocations, and the removal of the sites from the Green Belt, is appropriate, having been fully justified through the Local Plan preparation process. It is effective in that the development will meet housing needs in a sustainable settlement, and is consistent with national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 66168

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Parkwood Consultancy Services

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Concern that land at Kingswood Farm is not enclosed within the village envelope and remains in the green belt. The land is located off Station Lane and would not affect one of the two distributor roads through the village. The land is within walking distance of the railway station and close to local services. The village envelope would still maintain a strong defined boundary and not affect the green belt. It has the potential to offer future uses (for example housing mix) that would contribute towards sustainability. Other sites do not offer the same sort of integrity in respect of the village structure, and access may be outside the control of the landowners.

Object

Representation ID: 66184

Received: 04/06/2014

Respondent: The Trustees of the F S Johnson 78NEL Settlement

Agent: Tyler-Parkes Partnership

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The local plan is not sound because it fails to:

provide sound, accurate evidence to justify discounting land at Station Lane, Kingswood for housing development, despite assurances that previous misrepresentations would be rectified.
does not provide certainty over the long term
identify sufficient land within or adjacent to the largest villages proportionate to their sustainability criteria
include sufficient sites which are deliverable in the next 5 years to meet the 5 year housing land requirement
address the need for a 20% buffer in the 5 year housing land supply arising from the Council's record of persistent under delivery of new housing
fully address the implications on Warwick District of the potential housing land shortfall in the Housing Market Area and surrounding local authority areas as required under the Duty to Cooperate
offer developers sufficient deliverable housing land choices to ensure a rolling 5 year housing land supply is maintained
ensure that Green Belt boundaries are capable of enduring beyond the plan period through the identification of 'areas of development restraint' or 'safeguarded land' including in/adjacent to the most sustainable villages
provide sound evidence to demonstrate that highway access could be satisfactorily achieved to enable safe development of the sites allocated for housing in Kingswood; and
remove part of the land fronting Station Lane from the Green Belt and include it within the Settlement Boundary and allocate it for residential development
it does not comply with the NPPF and its presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Strongly recommends the allocation of land fronting Station Lane. THis would include discounted option 9 together with land to the east up to the existing field boundary. THe site is in an extremely sustainable location, close to Lapworth railway station and bus stops,the local primary school, shops and surgery. The Council's assessment of the site was distorted by the Council's decision to ignore the existing access opposite 145 Station Lane and assume access would be provided towards the northern end of the road boundary opposite 155 Station Lane. The Council also failed to assess in detail the landscape impact if development was confined to the field fronting Station Lane rather than the larger SHLAA site. Alternative landscape and highways assessments demonstrate inaccuracies with the Council's evidence base.
Highways Statement carried out by Savoy Consulting disputes the County Council's conclusions that demonstrating access could be acheived opposite 145 Station Lane. Access into the site would not require the removal of any trees.
THis highways evidence calls into question many of the Highways conclusions on other sites in Kingswood. It raises serious doubts over the deliverability of H29 and H30 where access would need to be obtained over third party land.
Landscape assessment carried out by Barry Chinn concluded overall the landscape and visual impacts for the development are considered to be predominantly localised and contained within a reasonably small area. Despite submitting this information the Council's evidence base remains unchanged. The SHLAA does not relate to the site area being promoted but instead the full extent of the land in the Council's ownership much of which it is agreed would not be suitable for development and would have an acceptable impact on the landscape.

Object

Representation ID: 66224

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Savills

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

There is no justification for the reduction in housing capacity in Kingswood from 100 to 150 in the Revised Development Strategy to 43 in the Publication Draft. Part of Site 8 (Land to the south of Kingswood Close) fronting onto Station Lane (as identified in the enclosed plan) should be allocated for 9 - 16 houses.