Mod 14 - Policy DS15

Showing comments and forms 151 to 180 of 276

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69062

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Ms. Natalie Matheson

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

If the main driver for removing the green belt is housing, then why choose somewhere that is not close to the recipient area i.e. Coventry?
No-one working in Coventry will want to live in a congested and difficult commute area.
The proposed location is isolated.
Construction will require huge investment in roads etc. to get people in connection with transportation - thus defeating the purpose.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Support

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69073

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Gallagher Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Representation Summary:

The allocation of Land at Gallows Hill is supported. However the wording that accompanies Policy DS15 is overly prescriptive particularly in relation to comprehensivity and the requirement within the policy for either a Development Brief or Layout and Design Statement to be provided to address the criteria set out in Policy BE2 as this ignores the fact that outline planning approval has already been granted. Early delivery of the Gallagher Estates site at Gallows Hill should not be restricted by a requirement to provide a comprehensive development of the whole proposed allocation site part of which does not benefit from planning permission.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69077

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Fay Kite

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Green belt in area meets five key roles of green belt
Land already being removed from green belt elsewhere - further development not sustainable
Sufficient non-green belt land to accommodate additional housing
Current strategy distributes development fairly and adjacent to employment opportunities
Focussing development south of Leamington allows for infrastructure, services and facilities to be provided to meet needs
Mitigation for pollution etc. south of Leamington would be less involved than for development to the north
No exceptional circumstances exist to remove land from green belt north of Leamington

Full text:

It is essential that the plan does not return to a scheme involving any development on the North Leamington Green Belt. The Green Belt in this area meets the 5 key roles of Green Belt and is an excellent and well used cultural and exercise related resource. Development in Kenilworth, Baginton and Lillington already take land from this essential Green Belt and further development on it would not be sustainable. It must not be permitted.
I would also like to make the following points:
1. A Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis is currently being performed with Coventry City Council. If this review identifies that it is necessary to increase the number of houses above those currently proposed I believe that there is sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development.
2. The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District. It is fair because there are still plans for new houses in the Green Belt at Thickthorn and Lillington as well as proposed development in villages.
3. The Revised Development Strategy proposes that most of the new development is located close to where employment opportunities already exist (e.g. industrial parks to the South of Leamington & Warwick) this provides an opportunity for people to live close to their place of work, reducing or eliminating commuting for many people, reducing pollution & improving quality of life. Furthermore there is ample space to build to the south of Leamington as the next nearest town is Banbury.
4. Focusing development in the South, in one broad area, ensures adequate public services can be provided and developed to meet the needs of the new population. These services can be designed to meet the exact needs of that new population and planned within easy walking and cycling distance, minimising traffic congestion. If development were to be more spread across the district public services would have to be developed in an inferior and unacceptable "make-do-and-mend" fashion which would provide poorer levels of service to both existing and new residents in those areas.
5. The Revised Development Strategy provides for improvement to the road network South of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. The transport assessment clearly shows that development in the North would generate more traffic congestion in the district as it would have forced people to travel south to employment land, shopping (e.g. supermarkets) and the M40. Loss of vital Green Belt recreation land would also have resulted in more people travelling by car for recreation.
6. It is possible that mitigation methods may need to be employed in the Southern areas to reduce pollution and congestion but the work needed to do this would be less than for development in the North. For instance putting the country park in the South next to the existing houses, with new housing beyond it, would make the green-park more accessible. It could be crossed by cycle-ways and would act as a green-lung to reduce air pollution.
In conclusion the exclusion of development in the North Leamington Green Belt enables the plan to comply with the NPPF. Any attempt to re-introduce development in the North Leamington Green Belt would be unacceptable and be bitterly opposed as no exceptional circumstances exist; the land is a vital and immeasurable resource for the future of the district and is critical to its future sustainability.
Development in the South reduces traffic congestion and reduces air pollution, it enables better provision of public services and other facilities with better access to the employment hubs in the South.

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69078

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Laura Fitzpatrick

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

There is no viable reason why green belt land of such value north of Milverton should be used to support Coventry City Council's housing need.
The "Exceptional Circumstances" needed to remove this land from the green belt do not exist. There are lower value green belt sites closer to Coventry which on the basis of planning precedent should be used in preference to the land in Old Milverton.
The idea that Warwick District Council should promote commuting from Old Milverton to Coventry is ill conceived, irresponsible and bad planning.

Full text:

Removal of green belt land of such high value - geographically, socially and agriculturally, would not be consistent with national policy.
Reasons for my objections are as follows:-
Milverton.
The EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES required by the National Planning Policy Framework to remove the land North of Milverton from the Green Belt have not been demonstrated by Warwick District Council.
The proposed development is to support Coventry City Council's housing need. There are sustainable sites closer to Coventry that should be used in preference to the land North of Milverton to reduce unnecessary commuting, inevitable congestion and further road construction.
In practice it is unlikely that people who want to live and work in Coventry will want houses on land North of Milverton and therefore this development proposal will not support Coventry's housing need.
Precedence for releasing land from the Green Belt requires the "value" of potential sites to the Green Belt to be taken into account and those with the least value to be removed from the Green Belt first. WDC, in cooperation with Coventry City Council, has assessed sites on the edge of Coventry as being of lower Green Belt value. Even if development at Old Milverton was acceptable as a sustainable location for development, there are sites with a lower Green Belt value that should be used in preference to the land north of Milverton.
The "green lung" between Leamington and Kenilworth will be reduced to less than 1 1/2 miles.
The picturesque northern gateway to the historic regency town of Royal Leamington Spa will be destroyed.
Highly productive farming land will be lost together with long established wild life habitat.
The residents of local towns will be deprived of an area which is highly valued and sustainable for walking, running, cycling, riding, bird watching and is also used by local schools for educational walks.

The proposed park-and-ride scheme is unsustainable because:
1. There will be no dedicated buses, so users will have to time visits to coincide with the bus timetable
2. The site is too close to Leamington. It would be better if the site was focused on the A46 roundabout with the A452, which could form part of the Thickthorn development, and provide for Leamington, Warwick, Kenilworth, Warwick University and potentially Coventry.
3. Much of the traffic using the A452 crosses to the south of Leamington where there are the major employers
4. Shoppers are unlikely to use the park and ride when there is plenty of parking in Leamington
5. Oxford appears to have the only park and ride scheme in the country which really works and this is because there is such limited parking in Oxford city centre.
6. There are already a lot of car parks in this area of Green Belt with impervious surfaces all of which reduce the areas ability to absorb rainfall and contribute to flooding

A railway station is unviable because the railway line is in a deep cutting in Old Milverton making construction impractical.

The land North of Milverton should remain in the Green Belt. If it is lost, it is gone forever.
The development proposed on the land north of Milverton should be reallocated to alternative sites closer to Coventry which have a lower "Green Belt" value and are capable of delivering the required housing.
In short:
* There is no viable reason why green belt land of such value north of Milverton should be used to support Coventry City Council's housing need.
* The "Exceptional Circumstances" needed to remove this land from the green belt do not exist. There are lower value green belt sites closer to Coventry which on the basis of planning precedent should be used in preference to the land in Old Milverton.
* The idea that Warwick District Council should promote commuting from Old Milverton to Coventry is ill conceived, irresponsible and bad planning.

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69088

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Mr. Michael Rayner

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Objects: -
- proposals do not accord with national policy on green belt
- areas of lower green belt value available closer to Coventry
- development will create additional pollution, traffic and congestion
- green belt will be reduced in width
- sets precedent for future development
- adverse impact on amenity, recreational activity, farmland and health
- impacts on parking
- no case for park and ride

Full text:

I am writing to object to the provision in the revised draft of the Local Plan to remove about half of Old Milverton from the Green Belt, and subsequently to allow development of the land along Old Milverton Lane, between the Nuffield Private hospital and the railway bridge in Old Milverton.
These proposals are unsound because they do not comply with national policy with respect to the development of land in the Green Belt. Warwick District Council has failed to demonstrate the "Exceptional Circumstances" required to allow land to be removed from the Green belt. During the revision of the draft Local Plan the land north of Milverton was included for development to help meet the housing needs of Coventry, despite the fact that there is land nearer to Coventry, with a lower "Green Belt Value" than the land in Old Milverton. Use of land in Old Milverton to meet the housing needs of Coventry, rather than land closer to Coventry, will lead to higher commuting costs, associated traffic congestion and pollution. Hardly sustainable development, rather ill conceived, irresponsible and bad planning.
The Green Belt has been very successful in preventing Leamington and Kenilworth merging. The proposed development would reduce this green space to less than 1.5 miles and set a dangerous precedent for further large scale development north of Leamington and so leading eventually to the two towns merging and loss of community identity.
Other reasons for keeping the land in Old Milverton in the Green Belt are the agricultural and amenity values of the land involved. The land is productive arable land, while large numbers of people walk (and run) from north Leamington to Old Milverton across the footpaths from Northumberland Road and the bottom of Guys Cliffe Avenue, both during the week and at weekends, providing considerable health benefits to the participants (and some dogs).
Commuters, often crossing the town and going to and from places of employment south of the town, and the daily school run, are the causes of local traffic congestion and associated pollution. The layout of the town precludes major new road construction to cope with the increasing traffic and it is difficult to see how the proposed Park and Ride scheme in Blackdown can help address this problem. There will be no dedicated buses so potential users will have to fit in with the bus timetables, making the scheme unattractive. The decriminalisation of parking offences and the current parking provisions (space and price) have greatly improved the availability of parking for shoppers in Leamington compared with ten years ago, so shoppers will have no incentive to use the proposed Park and Ride scheme.

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69093

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Mr P Manning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

No exceptional circumstances exist to warrant removal of land from green belt
More sustainable sites available closer to Coventry
Less valuable green belt sites are available
Closes gap between Leamington and Kenilworth
Adverse impact on visual amenity, farmland, wildlife and environment
Adverse impact on land available for recreation and leisure activities
Unsustainable park and ride
Flooding caused by additional hard surface run-off

Full text:

I believe that Modifications 16 and 14 are unsound because:

The EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES required by the National Planning Policy Framework to remove the land North of Milverton from the Green Belt have not been demonstrated by Warwick District Council.

The proposed development is to support Coventry City Council's housing need. There are sustainable sites closer to Coventry that should be used in preference to the land North of Milverton to reduce unnecessary commuting, inevitable congestion and further road construction.

In practice it is unlikely that people who want to live and work in Coventry will buy houses on land North of Milverton and therefore this development proposal will not support Coventry's housing need. The costs of houses in the Leamington area will also be higher than in Coventry restricting the viability of people buying houses with the express purpose of commuting to Coventry. This is not the best financial option for the council in helping boost affordable housing.

Precedence for releasing land from the Green Belt requires the "value" of potential sites to the Green Belt to be taken into account and those with the least value to be removed from the Green Belt first. WDC, in cooperation with Coventry City Council, has assessed sites on the edge of Coventry as being of lower Green Belt value. Even if development at Old Milverton was acceptable as a sustainable location for development, there are sites with a lower Green Belt value that should be used in preference to the land north of Milverton.

The "green lung" between Leamington and Kenilworth will be reduced to less than 1 1/2 miles.
The picturesque northern gateway to the historic regency town of Royal Leamington Spa will be destroyed.
Highly productive farming land will be lost together with long established wild life habitat.
The residents of local towns will be deprived of an area which is highly valued and sustainable for walking, running, cycling, riding, bird watching and is also used by local schools for educational walks.
In short rather than adding value to the area this development will degrade it and create unnecessary pressure on the road network going in and out of Leamington - which is already stretched to say the least!

The proposed park-and-ride scheme is unsustainable because:
* There will be no dedicated buses, so users will have to time visits to coincide with the bus timetable
* The site is too close to Leamington. It would be better if the site was focused on the A46 roundabout with the A452, which could form part of the Thickthorn development, and provide for Leamington, Warwick, Kenilworth, Warwick University and potentially Coventry.
* Much of the traffic using the A452 crosses to the south of Leamington where there are the major employers
* Shoppers are unlikely to use the park and ride when there is plenty of parking in Leamington
* Oxford appears to have the only park and ride scheme in the country which really works and this is because there is such limited parking in Oxford city centre.
* There are already a lot of car parks in this area of Green Belt with impervious surfaces all of which reduce the areas ability to absorb rainfall and contribute to flooding
A railway station is unviable because the railway line is in a deep cutting in Old Milverton making construction impractical
I believe that in order for Modifications 16 and 14 to become sound:

* The land North of Milverton should remain in the Green Belt
* The development proposed on the land north of Milverton should be reallocated to alternative sites closer to Coventry which have a lower "Green Belt" value and are capable of delivering the required housing.
* The road network is already overwhelmed and this whole project will be a stain on the green and pleasant land that is Leamington Spa.

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69104

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Coventry and Warwickshire Local Enterprise Partnership (CWLEP)

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Policy requires comprehensive development to be articulated through "either a Development Brief or a Layout and Design statement" This would provide opportunity to plan areas for small scale employment use into the land use framework of some of these development areas.
The proposed table in Modification 14 to Policy DS15 should be further amended to make it clear that the schemes should (where appropriate) contain an explicit employment allocation identified by a specific gross floorspace allocation for employment uses .For example the large proposed schemes at Kings Hill and Westwood Heath would appear suitable to accommodate small scale employment opportunities.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69157

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Alvis Sports Club

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

See attached.
The Club do not consider this modification to adequately either protect or consider the potential for development of the Club's infrastructure to sustain its community sporting and social offer to existing and future residents of Warwick DC nor Coventry cc. In not doing tills the proposed modification does not meet the NPPF requirements. There is also an inconsistency with then with the levels of detail provided under modifications 26 and 27.

Full text:

see attached

The Club notes that the Council's draft local plan has identified Kings Hill for the development of 4,000 houses and in doing so it has included the land that the Club leases from Coventry City Council as part of this development.
In reflecting on these proposals the Club wish to state that given the information currently available it opposes the housing development and wishes to remain on its existing location and continue to develop our facilities for the local community. This position is consistent with the PPS and other Policies - specifically Para 74 of the NPPF:
74. Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless: an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss.
To this end the Club feels that the Local Plan should more clearly reference the opportunity to develop the community, social and sporting offer to the new population through the development of the Club given the right circumstances. The Club has therefore commented on the modifications to the Local Plan as attached.
We also note the lack of any communication with us concerning your planned development and would expect that we will be included in all future communications regarding this proposed development. The Club wish to work with Warwick District Council, Coventry City Council and all relevant National sports' Governing Bodies to best meet the Club's facility needs now and into the future.
If you have any questions or would like further clarification on any of the information provided then please do not hesitate to contact me.

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69168

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Lioncourt Strategic Land - Andy Faizey

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object: -
- use of word "potentially" ambiguous
- rail station not confirmed as key infrastructure and deliverability uncertain
- issues with potential rail station (no clear access between station and university, crossing private land, potential impact on woodland)
- associated car parking options cannot provide for strategic facility
- Infrastructure improvements focus on link road, which will give opportunity for new station on line to south

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69171

Received: 20/04/2016

Respondent: Mr Michael Kelsey

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The removal of the land north of Leamington from the green belt is contrary to the NPPF as the exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated. As the proposed development is to cater for Coventry's unmet housing need other, less valuable green belt options should be utilised that are nearer to Coventry.
The re-use of urban brownfield sites appears to have been sidestepped in favour of the destruction of the green belt and this valuable grade 2 agricultural land.
It is considered that the removal of this area of land for development will render the remaining agricultural land holding unviable and have serious implications for the future of the remaining land and the ecosystems that exist in this locality.
The area to be removed from the green belt is a valuable recreational resource and will have ramifications that will undermine the structural separation of Leamington and Kenilworth. The allocation of this land has been driven by a 'spread the load' approach that does not optimise the use of the transport network and will lead to excessive and high cost infrastructure provision such as the park and ride which will be unnecessary and a poor use of green belt land. The allocation north of Leamington will lead to unsustainable travel patterns and it would be better if housing was built nearer to Coventry.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69178

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Mr. John James

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to proposal: -
- exceptional circumstances for removing land from green belt have not been demonstrated
- adverse impact on protected species, wildlife and habitats
- loss of land used for recreational activity
- traffic congestion along A452 / A46 at peak times

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69180

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs. Christine James

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to allocation of H44: -
- no exceptional circumstances identified for development of green belt site
- adverse impact on recreational amenity
- adverse impact on wildlife including protected species
- traffic congestion will be exacerbated

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69181

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Mr. Brijinder Gupta

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to H44: -
- development required for Coventry needs
- more sustainable sites closer to Coventry
- site will generate unnecessary traffic / pollution
- loss of environment
- won't benefit Coventry as people won't commute this far
- unsustainable park and ride
- loss of open space and green belt
- development of Thickthorn can continue focussed on A46 roundabout

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69182

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs. Preeti Gupta

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

No exceptional circumstances exist to remove site from green belt.
Development to support Coventry - sites closer to Coventry available to develop.
Green belt land has value for ecology.
Loss of green lung
Development should take place on non-green belt land.
Development will cause congestion.
Park and ride unsustainable.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69183

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Miss Vishaka Gupta

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to H44: -
- loss of green open space
- loss of wildlife habitats
- adverse effect on character and amenity of town
- adverse impact on landscape

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69191

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: A P Spiller

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

"Exceptional Circumstances" to use Green Belt have not been demonstrated
Sustainable and adequate land much nearer to Coventry
Increased pressure on roads, more harmful emissions, new roads would be damaging
Questionable whether people who want to live and work in Coventry will want to buy or rent property so far away from where they want to be.
Green Belt sites on the edge of Coventry have been assessed as being of "lower value"
Loss of green space
Flooding problems
Impact on tourist industry

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69213

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Barwood Development Securities Ltd

Agent: HOW Planning LLP

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Proposed Modification Mod 14 requests the submission of either a Development Brief or a Layout and Design Statement as appropriate to the Local Planning Authority. HOW Planning consider that the policy should be updated to ensure clarity that the Development Brief or Layout and Design Statement are to be submitted the Local Planning Authority as part of any planning application submission for an identified Strategic Site. This ensures that the policy is not ambiguous, as at present the policy serves to complicate matters and delay development.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69240

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: CEG Steel/Pittaway

Agent: Nexus Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Preparation of Development Brief including safeguarded land S1 is not a viable option and would be allocating / making land use assumptions on future policy. Could clearly be construed as going beyond the remit of supplementary planning documents or other guidance in detailing matters which should be reserved for local development documents.
With safeguarded land, not possible to determine wider community facility needs or impacts - Council cannot force owners to do so.
Development Brief required by Policy DS15 for this area would have no planning status, would lead to piecemeal development of a significant growth area.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69276

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Mr Edward Walpole-Brown

Agent: Brown and Co

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

There has been an over allocation of large strategic sites which do not deliver community benefits and a diversity of housing growth that meets with general requirements.
Many sites are in multiple ownership and this means that it will be difficult to deliver comprehensive and speedy growth.
Inevitably there will be difficulties in bringing a Masterplan and infrastructure together in a coordinated way which could prevent essential delivery.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69277

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Julene Siddique

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The lands proposed for 'development' are currently used for farming and local business.
They are also community grounds. Furthermore, this violates environmental
conservation of the warwickshire greenbelt. The proposed development and removal
of the greenbelt is not sound and not in accordance to the democratic will of the
Milverton community.

Full text:

Removal of land north of Milverton from the green belt
Allocation of land north of Milverton for development
Mod no. 16 and 14
para. 2.81 and Policy DS15
Policies map H44
The lands proposed for 'development' are currently used for farming and local business.
They are also community grounds. Furthermore, this violates environmental
conservation of the warwickshire greenbelt. The proposed development and removal of the greenbelt is not sound and not in accordance to the democratic will of the Milverton community.
We need to consult the local communities before any 'developments' are made on their grounds. Only local companies should have rights to build/develop on local
grounds because they would be the ones who would know the socio-economic
and even well-being impact of their development. A company who is not local to the grounds being put forward for removal/development has no idea the socio-ecomonic and wellbeing impact that will have on the local community on whose grounds they are developing. The policy proposed is that only a company local to the Milverton area (who know the area and the impact of any developments) should be the only ones with development rights. If they are not local and not aware of the impact of their development they shouldn't have rights to make it. Thank You

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69338

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Mr Bruce Paxton

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The proposed modifications 10, 14 and 22 will significantly alter context of hospital site no longer serving any purposes of Green Belt.
Site will be adjacent strategic urban extension and no longer play role in preventing sprawl/encroachment into countryside.
Old Milverton Lane and Kenilworth Road provide logical physical boundary to Green Belt to north of Milverton. Hospital site largely developed therefore no longer necessary in Green Belt. Site is subject to TPO's which help maintain mature boundary, ensuring trees screen any development on the site and wider urban extension in views from north. However as site is largely developed it is no longer necessary to retain in Green Belt.
2009 Joint Green Belt Study carried states this area
including the hospital (ie area WL 6a / 6b) as 'mid sensitive' and being of medium landscape value but worthy of further detailed study.
2015 Joint Green Belt Study assessed Parcel R1 (including
hospital) against the five purposes of Green Belt. Evidence highlights that hospital site plays a limited role in Green Belt.
To ensure LP is sound/consistent with national policy/based on appropriate strategy/evidence it is requested hospital is released from Green Belt.

Full text:

Removal of land north of Milverton from the Green Belt
Mod. no. 16
para. 2.81
Mod policies map no. H44
Allocation of land north of Milverton for development
Mod no. 14
para. no. Policy DS15
mod policies map no. H44

The exceptional circumstances required by the national planning policy framework to remove the land north of Milverton form the Green Belt have not been demonstrated by Warwick District Council.
The proposed development is to support Coventry City Council's housing need. There are sustainable sites closer to Coventry that should be used in preference to the land North of Milverton to reduce unnecessary commuting inevitable congestion and further road construction.
In practice it is unlikely that people who want to live and work in Coventry will buy houses on land North of Milverton and therefore this development proposal will not support Coventry's housing need.
Precedence for releasing land from the Green Belt requires the 'value' of potential sites to the Green Belt to be taken into account and those with the least value to be removed from the Green Belt first. WDC in cooperation with Coventry City Council has assessed sites on the edge of Coventry as being of lower Green Belt value. Even if development at Old Milverton was acceptable as a sustainable location for development there are sites with a lower Green Belt value that should be used in preference to the land north of Milverton.
The 'green lung' between Leamington and Kenilworth will be reduced to less than 1.5 miles.
The picturesque northern gateway to the historic Regency town of Royal Leamington Spa will be destroyed.
Highly productive farming land will be lost together with long established wild life habitat.
The residents of local towns will be deprived of an area which is highly valued and sustainable for walking, running, cycling, riding, bird watching and is also used by local schools for educational walks.
The proposed park-and-ride scheme is unsustainable because:
There will be no dedicated buses so users will have to time visits to coincide with the bus timetable
the site is too close to Leamington. It would be better if the site was focused on the A46 roundabout with the A542, which could form part of the Thickthorn development and provide for Leamington, Warwick, Kenilworth, Warwick University and potentially Coventry
Much of the traffic using the A452 crossed to the south of Leamington where there are the major employers
Shoppers are unlikely to use the park and ride when there is plenty of parking in Leamington
Oxford appears to have the only park and ride scheme in the country that really works and this is because there is such limited parking in Oxford city centre
There are already lots of car parks in this are of Green belt with impervious surfaces all of which reduce the areas ability to absorb rainfall and contribute to flooding
A railway station is unviable because the railway line is in a deep cutting in Old Milverton making construction impractical

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69341

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Dr. Irene Paxton

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Exceptional circumstances to remove land north of Milverton from Green Belt have not been demonstrated.
Proposed development is to support Coventry's housing need. There are sustainable sites closer to Coventry that should be used in preference which would reduce unnecessary commuting, congestion and further road construction.
People who want to live and work in Coventry unlikely to buy houses North of Milverton and this development proposal will not support Coventry's housing need.
Precedence for releasing land from Green Belt requires the 'value' of potential sites to the Green Belt to be taken into account and those with the least value to be removed from Green Belt first. Sites on edge of Coventry assessed as being of lower Green Belt value. Even if development at Old Milverton was acceptable as a sustainable location there are sites with lower Green Belt value that should be used in preference.
The 'green lung' between Leamington and Kenilworth will be reduced.
Northern gateway to historic Royal Leamington Spa will be destroyed.
Highly productive farming land will be lost together with long established wild life habitat.
Residents will be deprived of area highly valued/sustainable for walking, running, cycling, riding, bird watching and used by local schools for educational walks.
Proposed park-and-ride scheme unsustainable because:
No dedicated buses
Site is too close to Leamington. Would be better located on A46 roundabout with A542, which could form part of Thickthorn development providing for Leamington, Warwick, Kenilworth, Warwick University and potentially Coventry
Much traffic using A452 crossed to south of Leamington where there are the major employers
Shoppers unlikely to use park and ride when there is plenty of parking in Leamington
Limited parking in Oxford city centre makes it successful
Already car parks with impervious surfaces which reduce areas ability to absorb rainfall/contribute to flooding
Railway station unviable because line is in deep cutting in Old Milverton making construction impractical

Full text:

Removal of land north of Milverton from the Green Belt
Mod. no. 16
para. 2.81
Mod policies map no. H44
Allocation of land north of Milverton for development
Mod no. 14
para. no. Policy DS15
mod policies map no. H44


The exceptional circumstances required by the national planning policy framework to remove the land north of Milverton form the Green Belt have not been demonstrated by Warwick District Council.
The proposed development is to support Coventry City Council's housing need. There are sustainable sites closer to Coventry that should be used in preference to the land North of Milverton to reduce unnecessary commuting inevitable congestion and further road construction.
In practice it is unlikely that people who want to live and work in Coventry will buy houses on land North of Milverton and therefore this development proposal will not support Coventry's housing need.
Precedence for releasing land from the Green Belt requires the 'value' of potential sites to the Green Belt to be taken into account and those with the least value to be removed from the Green Belt first. WDC in cooperation with Coventry City Council has assessed sites on the edge of Coventry as being of lower Green Belt value. Even if development at Old Milverton was acceptable as a sustainable location for development there are sites with a lower Green Belt value that should be used in preference to the land north of Milverton.
The 'green lung' between Leamington and Kenilworth will be reduced to less than 1.5 miles.
The picturesque northern gateway to the historic Regency town of Royal Leamington Spa will be destroyed.
Highly productive farming land will be lost together with long established wild life habitat.
The residents of local towns will be deprived of an area which is highly valued and sustainable for walking, running, cycling, riding, bird watching and is also used by local schools for educational walks.
The proposed park-and-ride scheme is unsustainable because:
There will be no dedicated buses so users will have to time visits to coincide with the bus timetable
the site is too close to Leamington. It would be better if the site was focused on the A46 roundabout with the A542, which could form part of the Thickthorn development and provide for Leamington, Warwick, Kenilworth, Warwick University and potentially Coventry
Much of the traffic using the A452 crossed to the south of Leamington where there are the major employers
Shoppers are unlikely to use the park and ride when there is plenty of parking in Leamington
Oxford appears to have the only park and ride scheme in the country that really works and this is because there is such limited parking in Oxford city centre
There are already lots of car parks in this are of Green belt with impervious surfaces all of which reduce the areas ability to absorb rainfall and contribute to flooding
A railway station is unviable because the railway line is in a deep cutting in Old Milverton making construction impractical

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69342

Received: 15/04/2016

Respondent: Crest Strategic Projects Limited

Agent: d2planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The proposed modification recognises that land currently in the green belt can represent the most sustainable option to accommodate future housing needs. Land at Lodge Farm, Westwood Heath Road is being released from the green belt and allocated for a residential led development of up to 425 dwellings etc. within the Warwick Local Plan.
However, objections are lodged to the non allocation of land under Crest's control at Lodge Farm, Westwood Heath Road. That land should be released from the Green Belt and included within the proposed allocation as demonstrated in the attached Vision Statement.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69358

Received: 11/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs Michele Miller

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to allocation H44: -
- changes are irrational and unreasonable
- proposals not consistent with NPPF approach to green belt protection
- boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, and development is inappropriate
- to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, all other options should have been considered - not achieved here
- sustainable sites available closer to Coventry with lower green belt value
- such sites would better meet the needs of Coventry residents
- A452 between Leamington and Kenilworth already overcrowded and dangerous -additional housing will exacerbate traffic

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69359

Received: 11/04/2016

Respondent: Professor Christopher John Miller

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to allocation H44: -
- changes are irrational and unreasonable
- proposals not consistent with NPPF approach to green belt protection
- boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, and development is inappropriate
- to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, all other options should have been considered - not achieved here
- sustainable sites available closer to Coventry with lower green belt value
- such sites would better meet the needs of Coventry residents
- A452 between Leamington and Kenilworth already overcrowded and dangerous -additional housing will exacerbate traffic

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69362

Received: 16/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs. Ann Mulraine

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to H44: -
- no exceptional circumstances to remove land from green belt
- green belt sites closer to Coventry that should be used in preference
- encourages commuting
- loss of open space between Kenilworth and Leamington
- A452 already at capacity - additional traffic will cause more congestion
- flood problems caused by hard surface runoff will be exacerbated by park and ride
- sufficient parking in Leamington for shoppers
- Coventry needs should be met in vicinity of Coventry

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69364

Received: 05/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs. Geraldine Parker

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

object to H44: -
- no exceptional circumstances that justify loss of green belt
- site will not support Coventry's need
- lower value locations available nearer to Coventry without impacts on roads, congestion etc.
- park and ride scheme unnecessary - parking available in Leamington
- loss of open space between Leamington and Kenilworth
- loss of farmland
- adverse impact on amenity

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Support

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69367

Received: 08/04/2016

Respondent: Mr. Michael Patrick

Agent: Gordon Walters

Representation Summary:

Support comprehensive development of Kings Hill site as stated in DS15
Necessary to plan over a longer than 10 year timescale so that the Council can deliver the infrastructure to meet the needs of the development. Would also be prepared to collaborate fully with adjoining landowners or potential developers to assist with comprehensive development of any scheme.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69369

Received: 13/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs Jane Salvin

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Development intended to provide housing for Coventry
- site will create more traffic congestion as people commute between Coventry and site
- loss of open space between Leamington and Kenilworth
- park and ride unlikely to be used
- this site is high value green belt
- areas closer to Coventry lower value green belt and should be used instead
- loss of farmland

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69376

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Tim Burridge

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Proposed Park and Ride Scheme is unsustainable as:
there will be no dedicated buses
too close to Leamington
unlikely to be used by shoppers
there is already a lot of car parking

Full text:

See attached

Attachments: