Mod 15 - paras 2.66 to 2.68

Object

Representation ID: 68232

Received: 13/04/2016

Respondent: Miss Carol Duckfield

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Where is the infrastructure plan to ensure that you can still move around Leamington/Warwick when all these new homes have been built?
Leamington is bound to the south/west by river, cannal and railway lines with only 4 routes to get over these obsticles - where is the plan to deal with the existing problems this causes before an additional 18k cars are added to the equation?
Where is the plan for a relief road to link Whitnash and Cubbington?

Object

Representation ID: 68410

Received: 19/04/2016

Respondent: Leamington Society

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Development of land off Europa Way is not sustainable or environmentally responsible. Road traffic increases in the town of Leamington and Warwick will increase to an unacceptable level

Support

Representation ID: 69050

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Environment Agency

We support the wording of the proposed modification.

Support

Representation ID: 69169

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Lioncourt Strategic Land - Andy Faizey

Agent: Savills

SUPPORT the requirement for a Development Brief for Kings Hill provided that a clear timetable and framework for this document can be agreed at the earliest opportunity.
It should be noted that there is already a consortium and associated agreements in place to ensure that a comprehensive, sustainable and deliverable development can be achieved at Kings Hill.

Object

Representation ID: 69241

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: CEG Steel/Pittaway

Agent: Nexus Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

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.

Support

Representation ID: 69340

Received: 15/04/2016

Respondent: Crest Strategic Projects Limited

Agent: d2planning

These representations should be read in conjunction with our representations in respect of Mod 14 in relation to Policy DS15 Comprehensive Development of Strategic Sites.
Only one landowner and one developer - enables the site to come forward without any issues regarding ownership. Vision Statement demonstrates how the land can be comprehensively developed with a potential early start on site.
Crest would work with the Planning Authority and all other interested parties to prepare and submit a planning application as soon as practicably possible following the completion of all of the relevant survey work which is already underway.

Support

Representation ID: 69402

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Environment Agency

We have carefully reviewed the modifications proposed within the document based on the Planning Inspectors Interim Report and we find the it meets the tests of soundness:
We agree that the plan is positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy with the proposed modifications.
We have the following comments to make:
Modification 15
We support the wording of the proposed modification.

Object

Representation ID: 69692

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Gleeson Developments

Agent: Savills (L&P) Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy as currently drafted requires development briefs for Kings Hill and Thickthorn/east of Kenilworth to be broadly compatible with each other in terms of infrastructure and commitment to sustainable growth. This requirement is unjustified and not effective. Each development area will be required to demonstrate sustainable development in isolation and to deliver appropriate infrastructure to mitigate its own impact. The requirement should not extend to consideration of infrastructure requirements on other sites. It is suggested that the wording of Policy DS15 is amended to require to have regard to the development briefs (where they exist) as set out below.

Object

Representation ID: 69818

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Coventry and Warwickshire Local Enterprise Partnership (CWLEP)

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

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.

Object

Representation ID: 69835

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

2.66 This new paragraph is of concern. Leaving matters to landowners to work closely together to produce the most appropriate overall scheme for the site is unlikely to produce the result anticipated. Multi-headed leadership rarely works. The LPA should take the lead and co-ordinate the parts of the development to an overall masterplan agreed before the detail developer work commences.
2.68 Who judges that the strategic sites are being developed in a comprehensive manner? Left to the developers it will lead them to expect that their schemes will be nodded through, as costs come into consideration.

Object

Representation ID: 69852

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs J Mackenzie

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Allocations contrary to NPPF requirement to maintain separation, prevent coalescence
Numbers based on Coventry requirements not approved in local plan, revised before 2017?
No critical examination of claims that land unavailable -areas of Coventry green belt could be developed with less impact
Provision of land to meet Coventry's overspill contrary to NPPF - require sub-regional SA to be valid
How do proposals fit with neighbouring development
No consultation undertaken with parish councils before decisions made
MoU providing additional housing for Combined Authority circumvents democratic process, NPPF
Impact of proposals at Thickthorn and Kings Hill next to over-capacity A46 not considered

Object

Representation ID: 69965

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Gallagher Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Outline planning permission has already been granted on the eastern part of the H46A allocation within the control of Gallagher Estates and not on the land to the west. As such it is considered that additional wording should be added to Policy DS15 which acknowledges that planning permission has been secured on part of H46A and which requires the remainder of the site, which does not have the benefit of planning permission, to come forward in line with this outline approval.

Object

Representation ID: 70300

Received: 23/04/2016

Respondent: Hazel and Robin Fryer

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Most of the modified submission relates to increasing the number of new houses and proposes building a major housing development in the narrow greenbelt between Kenilworth-Stoneleigh and Coventry. This is contrary to the NPPF requirements in Paragraph 80 "To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas." "To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another"; therefore the proposed modified Local Plan is unsound.