Mod 14 - Policy DS15

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

OLD MILVERTON LANE,
LEAMINGTON SPA
The following representations are submitted on behalf of our client Nuffield
Health. They relate to the proposed modifications 10, 14 and 22 to the Local
Plan.
Modifications 10 and 14 relate to the proposed strategic urban extension and
housing allocation H44 which are adjacent to the Nuffield Health Warwickshire
Hospital ('the hospital'). Modification 22 safeguards a site (S2) in the Green Belt
adjacent to proposed housing allocation H44 for development in the future.
The proposed allocation and designation will significantly change the context of
the hospital.
These representations request:
* The supporting text to Policy DS15 and / or Policy BE2 acknowledges the
proximity of H44 and S2 to the hospital and require any future proposal (ie a
Development Brief and / or a full/outline planning application) to demonstrate
that the amenity and operations of the hospital are not adversely effected;
and
* The hospital site is released from the Green Belt as it will no longer serve
any of the purposes of the Green Belt.
These further modifications will ensure the Local Plan is sound, consistent with
national policy, in particular paragraphs 83 - 85 of the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) and justified.
Site Context
The hospital is located to the north of Leamington Spa and is situated at the
roundabout connecting Old Milverton Lane, Stoneleigh Road and Kenilworth
Road (A452). The hospital comprises two - three storey buildings with surface
car parking located to the north and south of the main hospital buildings. The
site adjoins the proposed allocation H44 which is located to the south.
The site has mature trees along the northern, eastern and southern site
boundary which are subject to a Tree Preservation Order. Vehicular access to
the hospital is from Old Milverton Lane and is situated opposite an 80 bed care
home which was approved under application ref: W/11/1670. The Woodland
Grange Conference and Training Centre is located to the north west of the site
and there is an office complex located to the north east.
There are no neighbouring towns to the immediate north of Leamington Spa.
Proposed Strategic Urban Extension and Housing H44
The hospital cares for approximately 40,000 patients each year. It is a key
employer in the area and provides valuable medical care for local residents.
We note modification 14 states Land North of Milverton has potential for:
"Employment land; potential park and ride, primary school; land/ contribution for
medical centre, community facilities; potential for new rail station (subject to
viability)"
Modification 10 highlights that the site has an estimated capacity for 250
dwellings but this could increase to 1,315 dwellings in the overall urban
extension.
Development of this scale and type has potential to adversely affect the amenity
of patients and staff in the hospital. It is requested that the supporting text to
policies DS11 (Allocated Housing Sites) and DS15 (Comprehensive
Development of Strategic Sites) acknowledge the hospital's proximity to
proposed allocation H44 and requires any proposed development scheme to
demonstrate it will not harm the hospital's amenity or hinder its operations.
Green Belt Release
Policy context
Paragraph 80 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the
five purposes of Green Belt:
1. To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
2. To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
3. To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
4. To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
5. To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and
other urban land.
Paragraph 83 requires Green Belt boundaries to be established in their Local
Plans and states:
"Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional
circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. At that time,
authorities should consider the Green Belt boundaries having regard to their
intended permanence in the long term, so that they should be capable of
enduring beyond the plan period." (Emphasis added)
Paragraph 84 advises how Green Belt boundaries should be reviewed:
"When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries local planning authorities
should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of
development. They should consider the consequences for sustainable
development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green
Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or
towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary."
Paragraph 85 states, when defining boundaries, local planning authorities
should meet a number of criteria including the following:
* Ensure consistency with the Local Plan strategy for meeting identified
requirements for sustainable development;
* Not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open;
* Satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at
the end of the development plan period; and
* Define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily
recognisable and likely to be permanent.
Analysis
The proposed modifications 10, 14 and 22 will significantly alter the context of
the hospital site and it will no longer serve any of the purposes of Green Belt.
The site will be adjacent an strategic urban extension and can no longer play a
role in preventing sprawl and encroachment into the countryside.
Old Milverton Lane and Kenilworth Road provide a logical physical boundary to
the Green Belt to the north of Milverton. As the hospital site is already largely
developed it is no longer necessary to include this site with the Green Belt.
The hospital site comprises approximately 2ha and is adjacent the proposed
strategic urban extension and safeguarded area which comprise 80 ha. The
natural boundary of the strategic urban extension and adjoining Green Belt to
the north is the railway line to the west, Sandy Lane and Old Milverton Lane to
the north and Kenilworth Road to the east. However, the hospital site is
currently an anomaly in this logical Green Belt boundary as the proposed
boundary has not taken into account the change in context as a result of the
proposed modifications. The proposed modifications and the resultant Green
Belt boundary therefore fail to take account of paragraphs 83 - 85 of the NPPF.
The site is subject to Tree Preservation Orders which will help maintain the
mature boundary. This will ensure the trees screen any development on the site
and wider urban extension in views from the north. However it is considered
that as the site is largely developed it is no longer necessary to keep it open
and retained in the Green Belt particularly in the context of the proposed
modifications.
We note the Joint Green Belt Study carried out in 2009 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.
The Joint Green Belt Study (June 2015) assessed Parcel R1 which includes the
hospital against the five purposes of Green Belt. The evidence highlights that
the hospital site plays a limited role in the Green Belt. In relation to Purpose 1 it
states:
"All the development within the parcel is concentrated in the northern corner of
the parcel. While the remaining areas of the parcel are open and free from
development, the openness of the northern corner has been compromised by
several large buildings, including Oak Medical Hospital (Warwickshire Nuffield)
and Blackdown Clinic". (Emphasis added)
In relation to Purpose 3 it states:
"All the development within the parcel is concentrated in the northern corner of
the parcel. While the remaining areas of the parcel retain the character of
countryside, are open and free from development, the areas around the Oak
Medical Hospital (Warwickshire Nuffield) and Blackdown Clinic are less open
and somewhat urbanised by the areas of hardstanding and large buildings
associated with these developments". (Emphasis added)
Therefore, in order to ensure the Local Plan is sound, consistent with national
policy and based on the most appropriate strategy and evidence it is requested
the hospital is released from the Green Belt.

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

I would argue that the decision to remove the land to the North of Milverton from the Green Belt for development is not justified, is not effective and is not consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework.
It is not justified because removing the land to the north of Milverton from the Green Belt and developing 250 dwellings and "Safeguarding" further land for future development does not meet Coventry's Housing Need. Clearly, the most sustainable locations to meet Coventry's Housing Need will be those closest to Coventry and with easy access to that city.
It is clear that Coventry City Council acknowledges this within its own emerging Local Plan, when it states: "The Council is committed to continued and constructive engagement, through the Duty to Cooperate, with its Warwickshire neighbours to secure the most appropriate and sustainable locations for housing growth across the HMA. In reflection of the Warwickshire authorities supporting the delivery of the city's wider housing need, where it is shown to be desirable, appropriate, sustainable and deliverable the Council will support its Warwickshire neighbours in bringing forward land for housing and employment that sits adjacent to the city's existing administrative boundaries [my italics]. This will ensure infrastructure needs are met in full across administrative boundaries (where necessary and as appropriate) and support the continued growth of the city as the central point of the sub-region." Clearly, the land to the North of Milverton is not adjacent to the City's existing boundaries.
For reasons of sustainability, and to improve air quality, Coventry City Council in its emerging Local Plan states it is keen to cut down on car journeys to work. Of the relatively small percentage (12.3%) of Milverton residents who work in Coventry, the overwhelming majority (88.72%) commute by car and none by train. It is clear that developing the land to the north of Milverton will do nothing to meet Coventry's housing need and does not meet the City Council's requirements for sustainable development. In DS New 1 of Coventry City Council's Local Plan they state: "A reduced need to travel will promote increased levels of walking, cycling and use of public transport. This will contribute towards reduced carbon emissions and improve the urban environment. This will have a positive effect on public health and wellbeing." I have to agree with this statement. The proposal by Warwick District Council for the land to the North of Milverton would increase car journeys with all the adverse effects that implies.
As for the economic growth that Coventry wishes to pursue, the removal of land from the Green Belt to the north of Milverton will not help Coventry's needs. Indeed in DS1 New of Coventry City Council's Local Plan it states there is a risk of development beyond its boundaries: "There is a risk that new homes, employment, retail and leisure opportunities will be developed outside of the city. This could see investment diverted elsewhere and put at risk the city centre regeneration strategy." Building to the north of Milverton does nothing to alleviate that risk to Coventry. Indeed, given the competing nature of Leamington's town centre, it increases that risk.
Warwick District Council claims that it has used a three-stage approach to decide on the Exceptional Circumstances on any particular site in the Green Belt:

1. Is there an essential need that has to be met? If yes,
2. are there any suitable sites outside the Green Belt that can meet this need? If no,
3. is this the best site within the Green Belt to meet the need (taking account of the Green Belt study as well as other aspects of the site assessments)? If yes, then there are exceptional circumstances to release a site from the Green Belt and allocate it in the Local Plan.
Given Coventry's housing need, Warwick District Council has to show there is an essential need that has to be met. Given that all the land to the north of Leamington and Warwick is in the Green Belt, it is difficult to see how Coventry's identified housing needs can be met without using some Green Belt land within Coventry's own boundaries or within Warwick District. But the vital question is the third one, are there exceptional circumstances to release a particular site from the Green Belt and allocate it to the Local Plan? The District Council does not provide evidence that it has assessed the sites in order of their contribution to the Green Belt.
Warwick District Council appears to rely on deliverability as an argument as to why less than half of Coventry's Housing Need that it is taking within Warwick District's boundaries is to be built adjacent to Coventry. WDC argues that although the King's Hill site can take more than 4,000 dwellings in land adjacent to Coventry, developers cannot deliver more than 1,800 there within the time frame. Given that the most of the land to the north of Milverton that is to be removed from the Green Belt is to be safeguarded and possibly used after the 5-year review, that would suggest it is basically being held in reserve should Coventry's housing need be greater than expected. That would suggest that, as elsewhere in the country, it should be possible in that case to deliver quite considerably more than 200 dwellings per annum on a site such as King's Hill that is adjacent to Coventry. Indeed in other parts of the country on sites of 3,000 or more as many as 500 houses a year have been deliverable.
Warwick District Council does not provide significant evidence to back up its claim that there are not sufficient deliverable sites on the edge of Coventry. In essence it makes a statement without backing that up with the evidence.
The proposed park-and-ride scheme to the North of Milverton does not appear to be evidence based. A senior Council officer at Warwick District has stated in public at a recent joint meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Finance and Audit Committee that: "In the Local Plan there is possible provision for Park and Ride. For Park and Ride to be viable you have to take out car parking capacity from the town centre." This was a meeting in which a major proposal was the replacing of an existing car park with a new and enlarged car park. Leamington Spa is not an old medieval town with narrow streets and little on-street car parking. It is a town built on a grid pattern with wide streets and plenty of on-street car parking. I would suggest that the proposed Park & Ride is not viable. I would also suggest that any attempt to try and make it viable by a substantial increase in car parking fees or closing of car parks would have serious effects on the economic success of the town's economy.
Warwick District Council has failed to provide the "Exceptional Circumstances" required to remove the land to the north of Milverton from the Green Belt and is therefore not consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework. It is also neither effective nor justified.
Warwick District Council claims that it has used a three-stage approach to decide on the Exceptional Circumstances on any particular site in the Green Belt:

4. Is there an essential need that has to be met? If yes,
5. are there any suitable sites outside the Green Belt that can meet this need? If no,
6. is this the best site within the Green Belt to meet the need (taking account of the Green Belt study as well as other aspects of the site assessments)? If yes, then there are exceptional circumstances to release a site from the Green Belt and allocate it in the Local Plan.
Given Coventry's housing need, Warwick District Council has to show there is an essential need that has to be met. Given that all the land to the north of Leamington and Warwick is in the Green Belt, it is difficult to see how Coventry's identified housing needs can be met without using some Green Belt land within Coventry's own boundaries or within Warwick District. But the vital question is the third one, are there exceptional circumstances to release a particular site from the Green Belt and allocate it to the Local Plan? The District Council does not provide evidence that it has assessed the sites in order of their contribution to the Green Belt.
Warwick District Council appears to rely on deliverability as an argument as to why less than half of Coventry's Housing Need that it is taking within Warwick District's boundaries is to be built adjacent to Coventry. WDC argues that although the King's Hill site can take more than 4,000 dwellings in land adjacent to Coventry, developers cannot deliver more than 1,800 there within the time frame. Given that the most of the land to the north of Milverton that is to be removed from the Green Belt is to be safeguarded and possibly used after the 5-year review, that would suggest it is basically being held in reserve should Coventry's housing need be greater than expected. That would suggest that, as elsewhere in the country, it should be possible in that case to deliver quite considerably more than 200 dwellings per annum on a site such as King's Hill that is adjacent to Coventry. Indeed in other parts of the country on sites of 3,000 or more as many as 500 houses a year have been deliverable.
Warwick District Council does not provide significant evidence to back up its claim that there are not sufficient deliverable sites on the edge of Coventry. In essence it makes a statement without backing that up with the evidence.
Within the Local Plan it mentions that a railway station could be built at Old Milverton. This seems to have been chosen without any meaningful discussion with the County Council that has for some time been working on the 'Knuckle' project. A new station is being built at Kenilworth but no suggestion has been made about a station at Old Milverton. The evidence that is available suggests that nobody in Milverton uses the train at the moment to commute to Coventry. In all my years as a District and County Councillor, no resident has suggested opening a new station at Old Milverton. A railway station is also unviable because the railway line is in a deep cutting in Old Milverton, making construction impractical.
District Council has also failed to provide the "Exceptional Circumstances" required to remove the safeguarded land to the north of Milverton from the Green Belt and is therefore again not consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework. It is also neither effective nor justified.
In summary, in order for Modifications 14 and 16 of Warwick District's Local Plan to be sound, the land to the north of Milverton would have to remain in the Green Belt. Warwick District Council has not provided the evidence of Exceptional Circumstances to justify removing the land to the north of Milverton from the Green Belt. There are sites adjacent to Coventry that could meet Coventry's Housing need and are deliverable.

See attached

See attached

See attached

We are writing to record our objections to the following proposed modifications to the New Local Plan:
Modification: Removal of land north of Milverton from the green belt
Mod Number: 16
Paragraph Number: 2.81
Mod. Policies Map Number: H44
Modification: Allocation of land north of Milverton for development
Mod Number: 14
Paragraph Number: Policy DS15
Mod. Policies Map Number: H44
In our opinion the Local Plan is unsound because it is not justified, effective nor is it consistent with National policy.
Warwick District Council has failed to demonstrate the EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES required by the National Planning Policy Framework to remove the land North of Milverton from the Green Belt and to permit the proposed development.
The development is for Coventry City Council's housing need. In practice people who want to live and work in Coventry will not buy houses on land North of Milverton and, therefore, this development will not support Coventry's housing need. There are sustainable sites closer to Coventry that should be used in preference to the land North of Milverton so as to reduce unnecessary commuting, inevitable congestion and further road construction. The proposed development is therefore not sustainable.
The initial development is a very small development, and equates to an annual build of only 19.2 houses over the remaining 13 years of the Plan period. These houses could be accommodated on other sites and, therefore, the harm caused to the green belt by this development by reason of inappropriateness outweighs any potential benefit.
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.
 The proposal is predicated on a significant increase in car parking charges as an attempt to change behaviour and will have a detrimental effect on the Leamington as a Town Centre.
WDC has also said that the "safeguarded land" north of Milverton could be used in the future to support Leamington's housing need. There are other green field sites that are available, and deliverable which should be used in preference. Therefore, WDC has previously accepted that the Exceptional Circumstances necessary to remove this land from the Green Belt for Leamington's housing needs do not exist. Nothing, in this regard has changed in this regard.
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 proposed railway station is unviable because the railway line is in a deep cutting in Old Milverton making construction impractical.
The land North of Milverton is used by many people for recreation. If developed 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 land North of Milverton has performed the requirements of the Green Belt and it should continue to do so:
 It has stopped Kenilworth, Coventry and Leamington merging. If this land is removed from the green belt the "green lung" between Leamington and Kenilworth will be reduced to less than 1 1/2 miles.
 It has stopped Leamington "sprawling". Development stops at the green belt boundary
 It protects the historic setting for regency town of Royal Leamington Spa which will be destroyed if development is allowed.
 It has encouraged urban regeneration in the neighbouring towns
 It has safeguarded the countryside. If this land is removed from the green belt, highly productive farming land will be lost together with long established wild life habitat.
In order for the modifications to the Local Plan to become sound the land North of Milverton should remain in the Green Belt.

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

see attached

See attached

We do not consider the Local Plan is sound because modifications 14 and 16 are not justified, effective and consistent with national policy.
We do not believe that modifications 16 and 14 are sound 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.
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 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:
- 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.
- The proposal is dependent on a significant increase in car parking charges in Leamington.
A railway station is unviable because the railway line is in a deep cutting in Old Milverton making construction impractical.

We believe that in order for Modification 16 and 14 to become sound:
The land North of Milverton should remain 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.

See attached