Mod 14 - Policy DS15

Showing comments and forms 241 to 270 of 276

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69960

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Hallam Land Management & William Davies Ltd

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

In respect of site g (land at Gallows Hill and the Asps) the site has already been granted outline planning permission in part. It is not therefore possible for the remaining part of the site that does not have approval to comprehesively plan for the whole site. The wording of the policy is not therefore clear and contrary to Paragraph 154 of the Framework.

A Design and Access Statement would be a requirement in any event. The requirement to produce a Development Brief is unnecessary

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69988

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Richard & Janel, Vince & Caroline Hill & McCullagh

Agent: Turley Associates

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The allocation at Westwood Heath should be extended to include land to the east. The Council has assessed the site as unsuitable and not achievable. However it is contended that access can be achieved via Cromwell Lane. Alternatively access could be achieved through site H42. A landscape and visual impact assessment has been undertaken. This shows the site can accommodate some change, particularly in light of site H42 and the safeguarded land further to the east. The site is within close proximity to employment opportunities (e.g. Charter Avenue Industrial Estate) and community facilities at Tile Hill and Burton Green. The site is within the green belt but does not meet the 5 purposes of the green belt. There are no physical constraints which would prevent the development of the site. It is available now and the landowners are willing to release it.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70016

Received: 20/04/2016

Respondent: Mr. Philip Jeary

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to proposal: -
- Road infrastructure inadequate and improvements would impact further on green belt
- value of green belt as identified in Framework does not accord with what has been identified in Warwick
- accommodating Coventry's needs by using a site this far distant does not represent sustainable development
- no justification for use of green belt
- believe there is a precedent for assessing green field sites - why has WDC given a low value to best area of green belt

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70020

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/local business. They are also community grounds. This violates environmental conservation of the Warwickshire Green Belt. The proposed development and removal from the green belt is not sound and not in accordance with the democratic will of the Milverton community

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70033

Received: 20/04/2016

Respondent: West Midlands Police

Agent: Tyler-Parkes Partnership

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

To remove land from the Green Belt at Kings Hill and allocate it primarily for: residential development with the potential for some employment land, land for secondary school provision, primary schools, local centre, community facilities, health centre and new rail station would inevitably have an impact on the level of policing which could be provided without commensurate investment in, and provision of, infrastructure to maintain the quality of service expected.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70041

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Stagecoach

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Any Park and Ride provision can only be effective if buses are not subject to congestion on the routes into the town centres. Without effective and comprehensive bus advantage, there will be virtually no obvious reason to use the P+R provision at all.

Stagecoach supports the provision of the Park and Ride at North of Milverton (H44)

The optimum location of the facility is something that Stagecoach would want to see examined further.




Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70072

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council [Archaeological Information and Advice]

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The text throughout the planned modifications with reference to educational requirements shows some inconsistencies and these should be amended appropriately (see below).
This will properly identify the need for a secondary school and an additional primary school.

Full text:

The Proposed Modifications of the new Warwick Local Plan will provide for increased new housing in order to meet an identified unmet need in Coventry.

The new Local Plan will now provide for 17,577 homes between 2011 and 2029. The District Council's approach to identifying land for housing as set out in the Spatial Strategy and SHLAA work is supported and these additional comments relate to the proposed modifications.

The County Council has had extensive involvement in assessment of new Local Plan and transport impacts and identification of transport infrastructure mitigation requirements through the life development of the Plan. We assume that the Draft Infrastructure Plan will be modified to reflect these changes

Transport matters

The transport evidence base developed by the County to support the WDC Local Plan comprises a series of Strategic Transport Assessments (STA) and accompanying technical notes. The latest phase of this work, based on the Local Plan Modifications, forms the basis for this consultation response. The most recent STA was submitted to Warwick District Council on 3rd March 2016.

On the basis of the STA work and additional analysis to assess modifications to the allocation options, we would support the inclusion of the proposed modifications to the allocations in principle.

In response to the Inspectors comments, the Duty to Co-operate and Secretary of State appeal decisions, the modifications identify a need to accommodate substantially more housing within the District. The changes to planned housing allocations (12,860 increasing to 17,577 dwellings) will have an impact on the transport network and mitigation requirements. The following sections provide an overview of the transport work by area.

South Warwick and Leamington
Approximately 6,000 houses are now proposed to be allocated in south Warwick and Leamington. The addition of 1,350 houses to be delivered at the Asps and Gallows Hill Development sites has focussed further development in this area.

The STA results reveal that a number of corridor/area strategies are required to mitigate the impacts of development, these are summarised in the latest revision of the STA. A key focus of these strategies is the A452 Europa Way corridor area, where significant infrastructure requirements are required including the upgrade to a dual carriageway. The modification to the allocations in this area has also triggered the need for further improvements on Gallows Hill.

In the majority of instances the scheme proposals lie within one or more of the areas identified within the Transport Corridor Strategy which is documented within the draft IDP. It is recommended that the new and revised schemes are incorporated within the Transport Corridor Strategy document at an appropriate time and should align with the Warwick and Leamington Spa Transport Strategy which focuses on how targeted sustainable transport measures, when incorporated within the corridor strategies, can reduce the impact of travel on the network. The STA notes that, post adoption of the Plan, further detailed work to enable a more thorough strategy to be determined which maximises opportunities for sustainable transport measures and reduced car based trips across all corridors and town centres will be required.

It is considered pertinent to highlight the critical role, of strategic and local importance that the A46 and M40 play in accommodating traffic flows. Further investigation of scheme proposals along both the A46 and the M40 will be critical to ensuring the overall resilience of the transport network is maintained. The latest STA section 4.53 notes that "There could, justification for seeking to improve the operational capacity of the SRN in Warwick and Stratford districts sooner than the modelling indicates, on the basis that the current modelling does not account for events such as incidents and other operational issues that occur outside of the issues induced by general traffic growth".

Sites East of Kenilworth
Local Plan modifications include additional housing allocations east of Kenilworth equating to 740 dwellings, this is approximately 50% increase in the housing allocation for the town.

The addition of these sites, combined with the cumulative impact of proposed allocations and proposed modifications, triggers the need for additional mitigation in the area.

Improvements at A452/A46 Thickthorn Roundabout and associated dualling to A452 Bericote roundabout will now become an essential element of the mitigation strategy and the IDP should be updated to reflect this. Additional mitigation is also identified within the town.

Sites at Kings Hill and Westwood Heath
Modifications to the Plan include development at Kings Hill (1,800 dwellings) and Westwood Heath (425 dwellings), south of Coventry. Analysis of the impact of development of this scale, in this location, has been considered within the latest STA. Previous STAs did not cover this area, as such alternative methodologies had to be adopted to analyse the impact of development.

The STA revealed that a cap should be placed on development at Westwood Heath of approximately 425 dwellings, based on link capacity assessments on Gibbet Hill and Crackley Lane. If a wider mitigation strategy which improves links to the A46 is identified, the cap on development in this area can be reconsidered.

In addition to the allocated housing at Westwood Heath it is also understood that there are emerging plans for the University of Warwick and Westwood Business Park to grow whilst other employment sites may also come forward within the area. The area has also been identified in the Coventry Local Plan highlighting the existing constraints posed by the A45, particularly in the area of the Kenilworth Road junction.

The impact of 1,800 dwellings at Kings Hill, and the cumulative impact of Local Plan growth and general traffic growth trigger the need for a major junction improvement at A46/Stoneleigh Rd and Stoneleigh Rd/Dalehouse Lane.

It is recommended that the junction proposals for the Stoneleigh Road/A46 junction be seen as the starting point for delivering a wider strategy for improving connectivity between the A46, North Kenilworth, Warwick University and the Tile Hill/Westwood Heath housing areas south of Coventry. This could be in the form of capacity enhancements applied to the existing road network or, alternatively and longer term, provision of additional capacity in the form of a new link road which can connect some or all of the areas identified earlier.

It should be noted that the STA has established a need for a number of new mitigation strategies and has altered mitigation previously identified; these changes should now be reflected in an update to the IDP. Additionally, in some cases the status of the requirement for these schemes has altered to "essential" as a result of the increase in demands on the network.

The STA work does not identify, at this stage, smaller, localised impacts that are not identifiable either due to the strategic focus of the work to date or the coverage of the models. These impacts and the site specific mitigation details will be agreed at application stage or through the development of the strategic schemes by WCC and funded through pooled S106 contributions and CIL.

For further details on the highway impact and mitigation strategies associated with the Local Plan, reference should be made to the transport evidence base located at http://www.warwickdc.gov.uk/info/20416/evidence_base and the latest STA submission.

The County Councils Sustainable transport policies are contained in the Warwickshire Local Transport Plan (https://apps.warwickshire.gov.uk/api/documents/WCCC-630-116).

Education provision and growth

We refer to our recent discussions about provision for schools and we request that the following changes to be made. For ease these suggested changes are highlighted in blue.

Amend Policy DS12 to read:

DS12 Allocation of Land for Education
Planning Policy DS12 Allocation of Land for Education

Land at Southcrest Farm, Kenilworth (ED2) and land at Myton (ED1), as shown on
the Policies Map, is allocated for educational uses and other compatible uses (see
policy HS5). This includes, on each site, the provision of a secondary school, 6th form
centre and, if deemed the most appropriate location, a primary school.
In the case of Southcrest Farm the whole area of the site is unlikely to be required
for educational purposes. Any land within this site that is surplus to the educational
requirement is therefore allocated for housing (see Policy DS11)

Amend para 2.56 Kenilworth Secondary School and 6th Form: the existing school sites are allocated for housing within Policy DS11. The school is seeking to locate all its facilities onto a single site. Further, the additional housing proposed in the Kenilworth priority area means that the town needs additional school places. If the current secondary school is to continue to offer the educational choice it currently provides and providing the educational needs of the Town and surrounding area. For these reasons, a new site for a secondary
school in Kenilworth is preferred. In addition, the additional housing allocated in the Kenilworth area requires the provision of a new primary school. Over and above the educational land requirement, the site has capacity for housing, as set out in Policy DS11. The land at Southcrest Farm, as shown on the Policies Map, is therefore allocated primarily for educational purposes and other compatible uses as defined by policy HS5, and for housing where there is surplus land over and above the educational requirement.



Amend para 2.56 as to follows:

2.56 Kenilworth Secondary School and 6th Form: Kenilworth School is not capable of being expanded on its current sites to meet the likely demand for school places generated by additional housing within the Kenilworth area. The school is therefore seeking to relocate all of its facilities on to a single new site.

A new site for secondary school provision in Kenilworth Town is therefore preferred

Land at Southcrest Farm (ED2), as shown on the Policies Map, has been allocated (DS12) primarily for educational purposes and other compatible uses as defined by policy HS5 and for housing where there is surplus land over and above the educational requirement.

The existing Kenilworth school sites are allocated for housing within Policy DS11.

In addition, new primary Schools will be required to meet demand in the Kenilworth area.


(Explanation: the school cannot be expanded to meet demand; the school must relocate if the demand is to be met; the plan anticipates the relocation of the school by allocating the existing school sites for housing; Southcrest Farm is allocated for secondary school provision in policy DS12; any surplus land at Southcrest farm will be available for housing)

There are some inconsistent descriptions and references to schools provision and we ask you to make these changes for clarification. The Inconsistencies are noted below and we would ask that you amend these paragraphs to include provision of a new secondary school and primary schools to serve the development.

Policy DS15 (p 9 &10)
Land at Kings Hill Potential for some employment land; potentially land for secondary school provision; new primary schools (plural) local centre and community facilities; health centre; new rail station (no secondary school)

Mod 21 (p 22)

New para 1.8 At Kings Hill an area of c269ha has been identified for a residential‐led,
mixed‐use development (see Policy map). The site has an overall capacity of c. 4,000 dwellings, with c. 1,800 dwellings being deliverable by the end of the current plan period. The mixed use development will also include the potential to provide employment land. Land will need to be provided for open space, leisure and amenity uses and will form part of a green infrastructure network linking to the wider countryside and north to the conurbation. A local centre will be provided at an appropriate scale, incorporating a range of local community facilities and services including meeting space / community buildings, emergency services infrastructure, youth facilities / play areas and local retail provision for convenience shopping. A new primary school (singular) will be required to serve the development, which may need to be expanded as the site develops over time. (no reference to a secondary school stated)

P33 refers
H43 Kings Hill Lane** 1800
(Total capacity up to 4000 with the balance to come forward beyond the end of the plan period). Potential for some employment land; potentially land for secondary school provision; (not in previous paragraphs) new primary schools; (plural) local centre and community facilities; health centre; new rail station

Greenfield sites para 2.55 p37 refers

2.55 At Kings Hill an area of 269ha has been identified for a residential‐led, mixed‐use development. The site has an overall capacity of c. 4,000 dwellings, with c. 1,800 dwellings being deliverable by the end of the current plan period. The mixed use development will also deliver opportunities for employment provision. Land will be made available for open space, leisure and amenity uses and a green infrastructure network will link to the wider countryside and north to the conurbation. A local centre will be provided at an appropriate scale, incorporating a range of local community facilities and services including meeting space / community buildings, emergency services infrastructure, youth facilities / play areas and local retail provision for convenience shopping. A new primary school (singular) Will be required to serve the development, which may need to be expanded as the site develops over time. (no reference to secondary school stated)

We request that any reference to schools should also identify the need for land for an additional secondary school and primary schools.

We will continue to work with you to the progress of the new Local Plan and should you wish to discuss any of the above matters further please contact

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70075

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council [Archaeological Information and Advice]

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

There are inconsistencies within the plan with reference to educational requirements at Kings Hill. These should be rationalised to cater for/ identify a secondary school and primary schools as required.

Full text:

The Proposed Modifications of the new Warwick Local Plan will provide for increased new housing in order to meet an identified unmet need in Coventry.

The new Local Plan will now provide for 17,577 homes between 2011 and 2029. The District Council's approach to identifying land for housing as set out in the Spatial Strategy and SHLAA work is supported and these additional comments relate to the proposed modifications.

The County Council has had extensive involvement in assessment of new Local Plan and transport impacts and identification of transport infrastructure mitigation requirements through the life development of the Plan. We assume that the Draft Infrastructure Plan will be modified to reflect these changes

Transport matters

The transport evidence base developed by the County to support the WDC Local Plan comprises a series of Strategic Transport Assessments (STA) and accompanying technical notes. The latest phase of this work, based on the Local Plan Modifications, forms the basis for this consultation response. The most recent STA was submitted to Warwick District Council on 3rd March 2016.

On the basis of the STA work and additional analysis to assess modifications to the allocation options, we would support the inclusion of the proposed modifications to the allocations in principle.

In response to the Inspectors comments, the Duty to Co-operate and Secretary of State appeal decisions, the modifications identify a need to accommodate substantially more housing within the District. The changes to planned housing allocations (12,860 increasing to 17,577 dwellings) will have an impact on the transport network and mitigation requirements. The following sections provide an overview of the transport work by area.

South Warwick and Leamington
Approximately 6,000 houses are now proposed to be allocated in south Warwick and Leamington. The addition of 1,350 houses to be delivered at the Asps and Gallows Hill Development sites has focussed further development in this area.

The STA results reveal that a number of corridor/area strategies are required to mitigate the impacts of development, these are summarised in the latest revision of the STA. A key focus of these strategies is the A452 Europa Way corridor area, where significant infrastructure requirements are required including the upgrade to a dual carriageway. The modification to the allocations in this area has also triggered the need for further improvements on Gallows Hill.

In the majority of instances the scheme proposals lie within one or more of the areas identified within the Transport Corridor Strategy which is documented within the draft IDP. It is recommended that the new and revised schemes are incorporated within the Transport Corridor Strategy document at an appropriate time and should align with the Warwick and Leamington Spa Transport Strategy which focuses on how targeted sustainable transport measures, when incorporated within the corridor strategies, can reduce the impact of travel on the network. The STA notes that, post adoption of the Plan, further detailed work to enable a more thorough strategy to be determined which maximises opportunities for sustainable transport measures and reduced car based trips across all corridors and town centres will be required.

It is considered pertinent to highlight the critical role, of strategic and local importance that the A46 and M40 play in accommodating traffic flows. Further investigation of scheme proposals along both the A46 and the M40 will be critical to ensuring the overall resilience of the transport network is maintained. The latest STA section 4.53 notes that "There could, justification for seeking to improve the operational capacity of the SRN in Warwick and Stratford districts sooner than the modelling indicates, on the basis that the current modelling does not account for events such as incidents and other operational issues that occur outside of the issues induced by general traffic growth".

Sites East of Kenilworth
Local Plan modifications include additional housing allocations east of Kenilworth equating to 740 dwellings, this is approximately 50% increase in the housing allocation for the town.

The addition of these sites, combined with the cumulative impact of proposed allocations and proposed modifications, triggers the need for additional mitigation in the area.

Improvements at A452/A46 Thickthorn Roundabout and associated dualling to A452 Bericote roundabout will now become an essential element of the mitigation strategy and the IDP should be updated to reflect this. Additional mitigation is also identified within the town.

Sites at Kings Hill and Westwood Heath
Modifications to the Plan include development at Kings Hill (1,800 dwellings) and Westwood Heath (425 dwellings), south of Coventry. Analysis of the impact of development of this scale, in this location, has been considered within the latest STA. Previous STAs did not cover this area, as such alternative methodologies had to be adopted to analyse the impact of development.

The STA revealed that a cap should be placed on development at Westwood Heath of approximately 425 dwellings, based on link capacity assessments on Gibbet Hill and Crackley Lane. If a wider mitigation strategy which improves links to the A46 is identified, the cap on development in this area can be reconsidered.

In addition to the allocated housing at Westwood Heath it is also understood that there are emerging plans for the University of Warwick and Westwood Business Park to grow whilst other employment sites may also come forward within the area. The area has also been identified in the Coventry Local Plan highlighting the existing constraints posed by the A45, particularly in the area of the Kenilworth Road junction.

The impact of 1,800 dwellings at Kings Hill, and the cumulative impact of Local Plan growth and general traffic growth trigger the need for a major junction improvement at A46/Stoneleigh Rd and Stoneleigh Rd/Dalehouse Lane.

It is recommended that the junction proposals for the Stoneleigh Road/A46 junction be seen as the starting point for delivering a wider strategy for improving connectivity between the A46, North Kenilworth, Warwick University and the Tile Hill/Westwood Heath housing areas south of Coventry. This could be in the form of capacity enhancements applied to the existing road network or, alternatively and longer term, provision of additional capacity in the form of a new link road which can connect some or all of the areas identified earlier.

It should be noted that the STA has established a need for a number of new mitigation strategies and has altered mitigation previously identified; these changes should now be reflected in an update to the IDP. Additionally, in some cases the status of the requirement for these schemes has altered to "essential" as a result of the increase in demands on the network.

The STA work does not identify, at this stage, smaller, localised impacts that are not identifiable either due to the strategic focus of the work to date or the coverage of the models. These impacts and the site specific mitigation details will be agreed at application stage or through the development of the strategic schemes by WCC and funded through pooled S106 contributions and CIL.

For further details on the highway impact and mitigation strategies associated with the Local Plan, reference should be made to the transport evidence base located at http://www.warwickdc.gov.uk/info/20416/evidence_base and the latest STA submission.

The County Councils Sustainable transport policies are contained in the Warwickshire Local Transport Plan (https://apps.warwickshire.gov.uk/api/documents/WCCC-630-116).

Education provision and growth

We refer to our recent discussions about provision for schools and we request that the following changes to be made. For ease these suggested changes are highlighted in blue.

Amend Policy DS12 to read:

DS12 Allocation of Land for Education
Planning Policy DS12 Allocation of Land for Education

Land at Southcrest Farm, Kenilworth (ED2) and land at Myton (ED1), as shown on
the Policies Map, is allocated for educational uses and other compatible uses (see
policy HS5). This includes, on each site, the provision of a secondary school, 6th form
centre and, if deemed the most appropriate location, a primary school.
In the case of Southcrest Farm the whole area of the site is unlikely to be required
for educational purposes. Any land within this site that is surplus to the educational
requirement is therefore allocated for housing (see Policy DS11)

Amend para 2.56 Kenilworth Secondary School and 6th Form: the existing school sites are allocated for housing within Policy DS11. The school is seeking to locate all its facilities onto a single site. Further, the additional housing proposed in the Kenilworth priority area means that the town needs additional school places. If the current secondary school is to continue to offer the educational choice it currently provides and providing the educational needs of the Town and surrounding area. For these reasons, a new site for a secondary
school in Kenilworth is preferred. In addition, the additional housing allocated in the Kenilworth area requires the provision of a new primary school. Over and above the educational land requirement, the site has capacity for housing, as set out in Policy DS11. The land at Southcrest Farm, as shown on the Policies Map, is therefore allocated primarily for educational purposes and other compatible uses as defined by policy HS5, and for housing where there is surplus land over and above the educational requirement.



Amend para 2.56 as to follows:

2.56 Kenilworth Secondary School and 6th Form: Kenilworth School is not capable of being expanded on its current sites to meet the likely demand for school places generated by additional housing within the Kenilworth area. The school is therefore seeking to relocate all of its facilities on to a single new site.

A new site for secondary school provision in Kenilworth Town is therefore preferred

Land at Southcrest Farm (ED2), as shown on the Policies Map, has been allocated (DS12) primarily for educational purposes and other compatible uses as defined by policy HS5 and for housing where there is surplus land over and above the educational requirement.

The existing Kenilworth school sites are allocated for housing within Policy DS11.

In addition, new primary Schools will be required to meet demand in the Kenilworth area.


(Explanation: the school cannot be expanded to meet demand; the school must relocate if the demand is to be met; the plan anticipates the relocation of the school by allocating the existing school sites for housing; Southcrest Farm is allocated for secondary school provision in policy DS12; any surplus land at Southcrest farm will be available for housing)

There are some inconsistent descriptions and references to schools provision and we ask you to make these changes for clarification. The Inconsistencies are noted below and we would ask that you amend these paragraphs to include provision of a new secondary school and primary schools to serve the development.

Policy DS15 (p 9 &10)
Land at Kings Hill Potential for some employment land; potentially land for secondary school provision; new primary schools (plural) local centre and community facilities; health centre; new rail station (no secondary school)

Mod 21 (p 22)

New para 1.8 At Kings Hill an area of c269ha has been identified for a residential‐led,
mixed‐use development (see Policy map). The site has an overall capacity of c. 4,000 dwellings, with c. 1,800 dwellings being deliverable by the end of the current plan period. The mixed use development will also include the potential to provide employment land. Land will need to be provided for open space, leisure and amenity uses and will form part of a green infrastructure network linking to the wider countryside and north to the conurbation. A local centre will be provided at an appropriate scale, incorporating a range of local community facilities and services including meeting space / community buildings, emergency services infrastructure, youth facilities / play areas and local retail provision for convenience shopping. A new primary school (singular) will be required to serve the development, which may need to be expanded as the site develops over time. (no reference to a secondary school stated)

P33 refers
H43 Kings Hill Lane** 1800
(Total capacity up to 4000 with the balance to come forward beyond the end of the plan period). Potential for some employment land; potentially land for secondary school provision; (not in previous paragraphs) new primary schools; (plural) local centre and community facilities; health centre; new rail station

Greenfield sites para 2.55 p37 refers

2.55 At Kings Hill an area of 269ha has been identified for a residential‐led, mixed‐use development. The site has an overall capacity of c. 4,000 dwellings, with c. 1,800 dwellings being deliverable by the end of the current plan period. The mixed use development will also deliver opportunities for employment provision. Land will be made available for open space, leisure and amenity uses and a green infrastructure network will link to the wider countryside and north to the conurbation. A local centre will be provided at an appropriate scale, incorporating a range of local community facilities and services including meeting space / community buildings, emergency services infrastructure, youth facilities / play areas and local retail provision for convenience shopping. A new primary school (singular) Will be required to serve the development, which may need to be expanded as the site develops over time. (no reference to secondary school stated)

We request that any reference to schools should also identify the need for land for an additional secondary school and primary schools.

We will continue to work with you to the progress of the new Local Plan and should you wish to discuss any of the above matters further please contact

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70108

Received: 16/04/2016

Respondent: Mr. Charles Mulraine

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to H44: -
- exceptional circumstances do not exist to remove land from green belt
- lower value sites closer to Coventry that should be used in preference
- WDC should not promote commuting from old Milverton to Coventry
- loss of open space between Kenilworth and Leamington
- park and ride could result in flooding from runoff and is unlikely to be used as there is sufficient parking in Leamington
- A452 already congested - will be worsened by additional traffic

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70112

Received: 05/04/2016

Respondent: Mr. Philip Parker

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to H44: -
- no exceptional circumstances to remove site from green belt
- site too far from Coventry to meet needs
- land available nearer to Coventry that is more suitable
- loss of open space between Leamington and Kenilworth
- loss of farmland
- park and ride unsustainable - sufficient parking available in Leamington

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70119

Received: 16/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs Pauline Pemberton

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Development proposed to support Coventry's housing need. Sustainable sites available closer to Coventry that should be used instead of H44 to reduce unnecessary commuting, traffic congestion and expensive road construction to alleviate the latter. People who want to live / work in Coventry unlikely to buy houses in Leamington, which is more expensive than Coventry.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70121

Received: 13/04/2016

Respondent: Ian Salvin

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Not demonstrated that exceptional circumstances exist for removing land from green belt.
Proposal not practical solution for Coventry overspill given distance from Coventry.
Congestion on A452 will blight area
Solutions involving lower grade areas of green belt closer to Coventry should be explored.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70122

Received: 09/04/2016

Respondent: Mr. Louis Skiffington

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Objects to proposed park and ride: -
-site too close to Leamington
- no dedicated buses
- traffic enters Leamington from the south
- tarmacked surfaces contribute to flooding
- park and rides can amplify problems they are intended to address
- environmental and other impacts e.g. loss of wildlife, habitats, increase in pollution, congestions

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70126

Received: 12/04/2016

Respondent: Dr Alexandra Tansey

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Exceptional circumstances for the removal of this land from the green belt North of Milverton have not been demonstrated. Highly productive land will be lost as well as established wildlife habitats and a green lung between Kenilworth and Leamington. This area is highly valued for recreation. This would lead to commuting to Coventry on already over-congested roads.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70140

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Barton Willmore

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

OLD MILVERTON
Proposed changes to text of policy

Full text:

see attached

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70147

Received: 20/04/2016

Respondent: Maggie Coleman

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Land is in the green belt and should not be removed.
High scoring area in terms of air pollution. Development will increase problem.
Plenty of brownfield sites closer to Coventry available, to house Coventry people who will otherwise commute to work adding to congestion.
Traffic at a standstill by Old Milverton roundabout at peak times.
Character of county towns would be changed to city conurbations.
Old Milverton will cease to retain its separate identity.
Wildlife and the quality of life of residents of Leamington will be adversely affected

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70151

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Julie Newman

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The land north of Leamington should remain green belt and not be allocated for housing. It is a valuable 'green lung' and provides the necessary separation between Leamington and Kenilworth.
The green belt at this location is of a high value, the land is productive for farming and has high quality habitat/ wildlife .
The area is a recreational resource that is much used by the public and this should be preserved. The park and ride proposal is flawed as it is too close to Leamington.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70169

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Mr Bruce Paxton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Exceptional circumstances to remove land north of Milverton from Green Belt not demonstrated.
Sustainable sites closer to Coventry should be used in preference - reduce unnecessary commuting, congestion, road construction.
People who want to live and work in Coventry unlikely to buy houses North of Milverton - proposal will not support Coventry's housing need.
Sites with lower Green Belt value should be used in preference.
Loss of open space between Leamington and Kenilworth
Adverse impact on visual and historic amenity
Loss of farmland and wildlife habitat
Loss of recreational amenity
Proposed park-and-ride scheme unsustainable
Railway station unviable

Full text:

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 co-operation 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 wildlife 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 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 focussed 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.

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70190

Received: 20/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs Ann Kelsey

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to allocation: -
- inappropriate location to meet Coventry's needs
- exacerbate commuting
- air quality
- sites of lower green belt value available closer to Coventry
- increase housing density / delivery rate at Kings Heath
- reassess Coventry's own sites
- Nuneaton co-operates with overspill provision
- loss of open space between Leamington and Kenilworth
- adverse impact on landscape, character of area, recreational and sporting activity, heritage, wildlife and habitats
- loss of high quality farmland
- railway station unviable
- park and ride unsustainable

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70197

Received: 18/04/2016

Respondent: Mr J C Clack

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Exceptional circumstance for release of the land north of Milverton from the Green Belt have not been demonstrated. The site is needed to support Coventry's need. There are more appropriate sites closer to Coventry. This site will cause unnecessary commuting, and congestion and road building.
This area provides productive farmland. It also provide important habitats for a range of wildlife and contains mature hedgerows. The open nature of the land also enable water to soak away and restores aquifers.
Housing in this area will exacerbate flood risk and potentially subsequent pollution of watercourses.
Traffic congestion is compounded by problems at Thickthorn A46 junction. Development north of Milverton, combined with development at Thickthorn means this will get worse and not even a dual carriageway will assist. In addition there will be problems for emergency vehicles.
The proposed park and ride would means buses are caught up the gridlock - the park and ride at Stratford has not worked.
There is no requirement for Coventry's residents to move here, so how does the proposal meet Coventry's needs.
the proposed railway station would be costly and track restrictions would mean services are infrequent.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70201

Received: 19/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs Jean Seton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Removal of land north of Milverton from the Green Belt is unsound. There are sustainable sites closer to Coventry which have lower green belt value. Leamington will almost be joined to Kenilworth and will undermine the sense of community for both towns. Productive farmland will be lost along with important habitats and an area which is used for recreation. The park and ride scheme will not work as most employment is south of the towns; there is plenty of parking in Leamington, and there will be no dedicated buses.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70209

Received: 14/04/2016

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. Douglas & Valerie Burcham

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to H44: -
- no evidence of people in Coventry wanting to live in Leamington
- no evidence of demand analysis
- commuting increases congestion
- appropriate sites closer to Coventry
- reuse brownfield sites
- access constrained by congestion on A452, A445; railway
- hard surfaces increase flooding risk
- three alternatives minimise congestion - Thickthorn; between Hatton and A46; north of A46 / SE of A429 junction.
- loss of recreational amenity
- unsustainable park and ride
- "safeguarding" a misnomer; green belt not being preserved
- railway station unfeasible
- lack of detail on sewerage capacity

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70219

Received: 12/04/2016

Respondent: Mr Graham Cooper

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The green lung between Kenilworth and Leamington will be reduced. This area is enjoyed for recreation which promotes healthy lifestyles. The proposals will damage this pleasant approach to Leamington. Productive farmland will be lost along with important habitats.
The access points on the A452 will create bottlenecks. the proposed railway station will not be viable.as construction would be impracticable.
The proposed park and ride is located too close to Leamington and could then also serve Coventry and Warwick. Further most of the traffic is heading to employment and retail areas south of Warwick and shoppers are unlikely to want to use it as there is plenty of parking in Leamington.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70220

Received: 06/04/2016

Respondent: Mr. Michael Chandler

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Exceptional circumstances for the removal of land north of Milverton from the green belt have not been demonstrated. There are sustainable sites closer to Coventry which have lower green belt value. Old Milverton Lane is not able to support the extra vehicles. people will not use the park and ride, it will add to congestion and pollution.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70221

Received: 14/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs J Bradley

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Site should not be removed from the Green Belt.
It has been assessed as high quality green belt; areas on the outskirts of Coventry are of lesser quality and should be used as an alternative
It is currently in productive agricultural use; this should not be lost if other areas are available.
Site is a much-valued recreational resource and used by a wide range of interests.
It is close to the adjacent Avon Valley (designated Local Wildlife Site) and there are many species of animals and birds that are found here as a consequence.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70222

Received: 17/04/2016

Respondent: Prof. Charlotte Brunsdon

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The proposed plan (including development at north Leamington) would encourage long distance (unsustainable) commuting levels from Coventry.
There would be a reduction in green belt land and the separation of Leamington and Kenilworth would be eroded if the plan is adopted as proposed.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70224

Received: 18/04/2016

Respondent: Ms. Caroline Cottin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The exceptional circumstances for the removal of the land north of Leamington have not been proven/ made. The allocation of the land north of Leamington will have a serious negative impact on the quality of Leamington Spa putting too much pressure on existing resources/ services.
The land north of Leamington is high quality agricultural land that is very productive , it's loss will also cause the destruction / loss of valuable habitat.
The land is a very valuable recreational resource that is used by a wide variety of interests, walkers , bird watchers, cyclists etc. The allocation of land for a park and ride is also flawed as it is too close to Leamington Spa, it would not be useful without a dedicated bus service and is not located closely enough to the major employment areas that are south of Leamington Spa.
The development proposal should not go forwards here , alternative sites should be found nearer to Coventry (to best serve Coventry's housing needs).

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70235

Received: 19/04/2016

Respondent: Miss Melanie Astell

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to proposals: -
- exceptional circumstances required by NPPF for allocation of green belt have not been demonstrated
- unlikely that people that work in Coventry will want to live in Milverton
- lower value green belt sites closer to Coventry should be used in preference
- promoting commuting from Milverton to Coventry
- increased traffic congestion
- open space between Leamington and Kenilworth will be lost

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70250

Received: 16/04/2016

Respondent: Ms. Margaret Heavey

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The area is a long established wildlife habitat and this, together with farming land would be lost. There are alternative sites closer to Coventry which have a lower green belt value which could be used to be development more conveniently for Coventry residents.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70252

Received: 19/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs. Norma Walker

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

As development is to cater for Coventry's unmet housing need other, less valuable green belt options should be utilised that are nearer to Coventry.
Contrary to NPPF on use of green belt.
People wanting to live / work in Coventry unlikely to live here.
Loss of recreational amenity.
Loss of productive farmland.
Loss of wildlife habitat.
Unsustainable park and ride scheme

Full text:

See attached

Attachments: