Mod 16 - para 2.81

Showing comments and forms 271 to 300 of 368

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69579

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Mr Richard Hawking

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

I do not believe there are "exceptional circumstances" to remove the land north of Milverton from the green belt. There are lower green belt value sites nearer to Coventry. A park and ride scheme is not needed in Leamington as there is ample parking in the town.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69601

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Lenco Investments

Agent: RPS Planning & Development

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Unconvinced that the Council has correctly identified the quantum of land required around south Coventry, or identified the sites to support such a policy approach.
Efficacy of this policy is contingent on the land that is earmarked to be removed from the Green Belt. The strategy is not positively prepared, justified or effective against the provisions of paragraph 182 of the NPPF.
Additional sites are required around Coventry, in order to pursue the most appropriate strategy for growth and to give certainty that the Green Belt, as amended, will endure beyond the plan period.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69618

Received: 16/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs. Judy Walter

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Land North of Milverton is to fulfil Coventry's unmet housing need. Coventry's Local Plan declares preference for sites adjacent to the City's administrative boundaries. Land North of Milverton is Green Belt. The NPPF requires there to be "Exceptional Circumstances" for removal of such land from the Green Belt which WDC has failed to demonstrate.. It is good planning practice to consider first any deliverable and developable non-Green Belt land, followed by land that makes a lesser Green Belt contribution, before considering land of greater Green Belt contribution. There are more suitable and deliverable sites adjoining or closer to Coventry and Kenilworth including many with lesser Green Belt scores. These would be more sustainable, reducing commuter traffic into Coventry with its attendant pollution, congestion and new road construction requirements.
Allocating land North of Milverton for development would reduce the green space between Leamington and Kenilworth and adversely affect the northern gateway into to the historic regency town of Royal Leamington Spa. Building houses with roads and other infrastructure will impair the environment. Further consideration and unbiased analysis should concentrate, but not be limited to Kings Hill, sites adjacent to Coventry airport, sites adjacent to Westwood Heath and Hurst Farm adjoining Warwick University. Government policy favours sites larger the land at Old Milverton, which could not qualify for funding under the DCLG's Large Sites Infrastructure Programme with its 1,500 dwellings minimum, while Kings Hill, Westwood Heath and Hurst Farm could.
The proposal for a Park and Ride development is unsustainable. These schemes only work where there is a high demand by visitors and where the end destination is uneconomic to visit by car. Its location would be best on a major existing trunk road such as the A46, probably adjacent to Warwick Parkway rail station or close the Thickthorn Island. The concept of a railway station in Old Milverton is neither justified nor effective and would only be deliverable at great cost.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69628

Received: 14/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs. Sandra Lewis Hunt

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

- Green belt is preserved for environmental reasons - trees and plants, wildlife as well as pleasure and enjoyment.
- If natural environment is destroyed, children will not have wild places to learn about nature and wild life.
- Children will imitate the same and continue destroying the heritage.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69636

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs. Elizabeth Rowley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to allocations: -
- adverse impact on character of village
- poor / unsafe access into village
- traffic congestion and parking
-road safety adversely affected by increase in traffic
- adverse impact on existing services and facilities
- lack of capacity at train station

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69649

Received: 15/04/2016

Respondent: Dr Peter Shipton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The land is designated Green Belt and the NPPF states that green belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances and these are not set out convincingly.
Effects on the village and its community:
The steeply sloping site is adjacent to an area of flood risk in the existing village due to surface water run-off into Pingle Brook. In the assessment it states that sufficient mitigation will be available using SUDS. It does not make clear whether this has been fully assessed by the Environment Agency. After expenditure on two flood alleviation schemes. Additional houses would put existing at more risk from run off.
The removal of most of Cubbington Wood and its replacement with a cutting for HS2 will potentially have further adverse effects on drainage increasing flood risk.
The sewers/surface drains in adjacent low lying parts of the village are at risk of being overwhelmed during heavy rainfall without 95 additional homes.
Two local schools are oversubscribed and would have to be significantly expanded. Local GP surgeries are oversubscribed and will struggle to cope.
The building of HS2 has not been addressed - it has been opposed by the local council on the basis of its effects on the environment and yet H50 proposes building closer to the track. Encroachment into the site by the embankment to give access to a road bridge is mentioned on environmental grounds but nothing is said about the potential hazard of vehicles getting safe access onto the road and merging.
Lastly the detrimental effect of landscaping to the east of Cubbington from HS2 is already going to be considerable and the building of houses in this prominent field is further going to damage the local environment.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69657

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs Julie Tidd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Exceptional circumstances for the removal of land from Green Belt not demonstrated for following reasons:
- More sustainable sites to meet Coventry's unmet need are available.
- Lower value green belt sites exist closer to Coventry.
- removal of site from Green Belt increases risk of settlement coalescence
- loss of land of high amenity and recreational value
- visual impact of loss of open land
- loss of higher quality farming land
- potential flood risk of new development
- increased traffic congestion

Park and Ride unsustainable and in the wrong location to meet need

Railway Station is unviable

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69660

Received: 20/03/2016

Respondent: Prof. Ian Stewart

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

- Inadequate infrastructure for proposed number of homes.
- Roads unable to cope with construction traffic.
- Coventry will have to provide all the infrastructure.
- Building on green belt is wrong.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69668

Received: 13/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs Lesley Tacon

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

H24 Burton Green - inc. in houses from 60 to 90 understood and accepted. Concerned over removal of infrastructure requirements for village green and parking. Village hall not now planned for Burrowhill site, it is vital there is parking for the school, which will have to expand and playing fields/sports facilities/village green space (non sporting)

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Support

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69693

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Gleeson Developments

Agent: Savills (L&P) Ltd

Representation Summary:

The main modifications to Policy DS19 as they relate to Southcrest Farm being removed from the Green Belt are supported.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69705

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Woodland Trust

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

We are pleased to see Wainbody Wood excluded from development in new paragraph 1.09 of modification 21 and protected from associated impacts and would like to see this cross referenced to modifications 16 and PM36.

Full text:

See attached
Appendix 1

Ancient Woodland

As the UK's leading woodland conservation charity, the Trust aims to protect native woods, trees and their wildlife for the future. Through the restoration and improvement of woodland biodiversity and increased awareness and understanding of important woodland, these aims can be achieved. We own over 1,250 sites across the UK, covering around 23,000 hectares (57,000 acres) and we have 500,000 members and supporters.

Ancient woodland is defined as an irreplaceable natural resource that has remained constantly wooded since AD1600. The length at which ancient woodland takes to develop and evolve (centuries, even millennia), coupled with the vital links it creates between plants, animals and soils accentuate its irreplaceable status. The varied and unique habitats ancient woodland sites provide for many of the UK's most important and threatened fauna and flora species cannot be re-created and cannot afford to be lost. As such, the Woodland Trust aims to prevent the damage, fragmentation and loss of these finite irreplaceable sites from any form of disruptive development.

The Trust is concerned about a number of site allocations included in the Warwickshire Local Plan as they could lead to the damage and loss of ancient woodland.

Planning policy

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 118 states that "planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss."
Emerging national policy is increasingly supportive of absolute protection of ancient woodland and ancient trees. The Communities and Local Government (CLG) Select Committee published its report following its June 2014 inquiry into the 'Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)', in which it has specifically recognised the need for better protection for ancient woodland (Tues 16th Dec 2014). The CLG Select Committee report states: 'We agree that ancient woodland should be protected by the planning system. Woodland that is over 400 years old cannot be replaced and should be awarded the same level of protection as our built heritage. We recommend that the Government amend paragraph 118 of the NPPF to state that any loss of ancient woodland should be "wholly exceptional". We further recommend that the Government initiate work with Natural England and the Woodland Trust to establish whether more ancient woodland could be designated as sites of special scientific interest and to consider what the barriers to designation might be.' http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmcomloc/190/190.pdf.
This shows a clear direction of travel, recognising that the NPPF does not currently provide sufficient protection for ancient woodland. Until the NPPF is amended there is a clear role for Local Plans and associated documents to provide this improved level of protection and to ensure that irreplaceable habitats get the same level of protection as heritage assets enjoy under the NPPF.
This recommendation should also be considered in conjunction with other - stronger - national policies on ancient woodland and ancient trees-
* The Government's policy document 'Keepers of Time - A statement of Policy for England's Ancient & Native Woodland' (Defra/Forestry Commission, 2005, p.10) states: 'The existing area of ancient woodland should be maintained and there should be a net increase in the area of native woodland'. 'Keepers of Time' (Defra, 2005) - now re-affirmed in the Government's Forestry Policy Statement - also requires that: 'Ancient and native woodland and trees should make an increasing contribution to our quality of life....Take steps to avoid losses of ancient woodland and of ancient and veteran trees' (P.10/11).
* The Government's Independent Panel on Forestry states: 'Government should reconfirm the policy approach set out in the Open Habitats Policy and Ancient Woodland Policy (Keepers of Time - A statement of policy for England's ancient and native woodland).....Reflect the value of ancient woodlands, trees of special interest, for example veteran trees, and other priority habitats in Local Plans, and refuse planning permission for developments that would have an adverse impact on them.' (Defra, Final Report, July 2012). This has been endorsed by the response in the Government Forestry Policy Statement (Defra Jan 2013): 'We recognise the value of our native and ancient woodland and the importance of restoring open habitats as well as the need to restore plantations on ancient woodland sites. We, therefore, confirm our commitment to the policies set out in both the Open Habitats Policy and Keepers of Time, our statement of policy for England's ancient and native woodland'.
* The Government's Natural Environment White Paper - The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature (HM Government, July 2011, para 2.56) states that: 'The Government is committed to providing appropriate protection to ancient woodlands....'.

* The Biodiversity Strategy for England (Biodiversity 2020: A Strategy for England's Wildlife & Ecosystem Services, Defra 2011, see 'Forestry' para 2.16) states that - 'We are committed to providing appropriate protection to ancient woodlands and to more restoration of plantations on ancient woodland site'.
There is increasing evidence of other local authorities supporting absolute protection of ancient woodland in their LDF planning documents -

North Somerset Council Core Strategy Adopted April 2012 -
'Policy CS4: Nature conservation
North Somerset contains outstanding wildlife habitats and species. These include limestone grasslands, traditional orchards, wetlands, rhynes, commons, hedgerows, ancient woodlands and the Severn Estuary. Key species include rare horseshoe bats, otters, wildfowl and wading birds, slow-worms and water voles.
The biodiversity of North Somerset will be maintained and enhanced by:...
3) seeking to protect, connect and enhance important habitats, particularly designated sites, ancient woodlands and veteran trees'.
South Ribble Borough Council Local Plan 2012 - 2026 (Adopted July 2015)
Policy G13-Trees, Woodlands and Development
a) Planning permission will not be permitted where the proposal adversely affects trees, woodlands and hedgerows which are:
i Protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO);
ii Ancient Woodlands including individual ancient and veteran trees and those defined in Natural England's inventory of ancient woodlands;
ii In a Conservation Area; or
iv Within a recognised Nature Conservation Site.
10.73 Ancient Woodlands (woodlands which have been continuously wooded since 1600AD) are particularly important for their flora, fauna and their undisturbed soil and drainage patterns. It is essential that Ancient Woodlands are protected from the adverse effects of development since they are an irreplaceable asset.
10.74 Trees in Conservation Areas also make a special contribution and enhance the environmental quality of these areas. Such trees are protected under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Six weeks prior written notice must be given to the local planning authority of any intended works to the trees. This will enable the Council to make a Tree Preservation Order if the proposed works are unacceptable and detrimental to the character of the Conservation Area. The Council wishes to encourage the planting of native tree and hedgerow species, where trees are characteristic of the landscape and are beneficial to wildlife
The Bristol City Council - Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (Adopted July 2014) [part of Local Plan) states that
Policy DM17: Development Involving Existing Green Infrastructure
"Trees
All new development should integrate important existing trees. Development which would result in the loss of Ancient Woodland, Aged trees or Veteran trees will not be permitted".
Torbay Local Plan (adopted December 2015) Policy C4 - Trees, hedgerows and natural landscape features
"Development will not be permitted when it would seriously harm, either directly or indirectly, protected or veteran trees, hedgerows, ancient woodlands or other natural features of significant landscape, historic or nature conservation value".


In addition Policy NE2 Protecting Designated Biodiversity and Geodiversity Assets of the Warwick DC Local Plan Submission version (sub para a) also provides protection for ancient woodland and veteran trees.


Natural England's standing advice for Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees (published April 2014), paragraph 4.8.1 states: 'Ancient woodland is of prime ecological and landscape importance, providing a vital part of a rich and diverse countryside. In particular, ancient woodland:

* is exceptionally rich in wildlife, and supports many rare and threatened species;
* may contain surviving descendants and features from the original natural forests;
* acts as reservoirs from which wildlife can spread into new woodlands;
* has valuable soils due to their undisturbed nature;
* is an integral part of England's historic landscapes and the biological and visual functioning of a landscape;
* contains a wealth of features of historical and archaeological importance little altered by modern cultivation or disturbance;
* contributes to people's sense of place and imagination.'

Impacts on ancient woodland

Approximately one quarter of priority UK BAP species are associated with woodland habitats. Forests, woods, and trees make a significant contribution to biodiversity, and ancient sites are recognised as being of particular value. Due to their longevity, ancient woodlands are more species rich, and are often refuges for specialist woodland species that struggle to colonise new areas.

Woodland wildlife populations are exposed to damaging external impacts from outside the woodland site. Intensity of land use adjacent to ancient woodland results in an increase in these external impacts, otherwise known as 'edge effects'. Detrimental edge effects have been shown to penetrate woodland causing changes in ancient woodland characteristics that extend up to three times the canopy height in from the forest edges.

Creation of new areas of woodland or buffer zones around semi-natural habitats, and more particularly ancient woodland, will help to reduce and ameliorate the impact of damaging edge effects, serving to improve their sustainability. The size of the buffer is dependent on the intensity of land use in the intervening matrix between ancient woods.

Natural England's standing advice for Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees, paragraph 6.4, highlights the importance of keeping development away from ancient woodland and buffering it where necessary:

"Development must be kept as far as possible from ancient woodland, with a buffer area maintained between the ancient woodland and any development boundary. An appropriate buffer area will depend on the local circumstances and the type of development. In a planning case in West Sussex the Secretary of State supported the arguments for a 15m buffer around the affected ancient woodland, but larger buffers may be required."

The size of a number of the site allocations suggests that large scale development could potentially take place. The minimum 15m buffer recommendation to all development is not effective in ensuring that ancient woodland within and/or adjacent to site allocations is not affected by potential future development. Buffers should be constructed on a case-by-case basis rather than a 'one size fits all' approach.

The Woodland Trust is particularly concerned about the following:

* Disturbance by noise, light, trampling and other human activity;
* Fragmentation as a result of the destruction of adjacent semi-natural habitats;
* Development providing a source of non-native plants and aiding their colonisation;
* Where the wood edge overhangs gardens, branches and even whole trees can be indiscriminately lopped/felled, causing reduction of the woodland canopy;
* There will inevitably be safety issues in respect of trees adjoining public areas and buildings, which will be threatening to the longer-term retention of such trees;
* There can be changes to the hydrology altering ground water and surface water quantities. Also the introduction of water run offs from urban development will result in changes to the characteristics and quality of the surface water as a result of pollution/contamination etc.

The close proximity of a large development to ancient woodland and ancient trees could have numerous adverse impacts on the health of the site.

In order to protect the site's fauna and flora from exposure to edge effects it is necessary to implement a buffer zone. A buffer is a landscape feature used to protect sensitive areas from the impacts of development (or other harmful neighbouring land use). The buffer could be planted with trees or shrubs or it could be an area of land which the development is not allowed to encroach upon (e.g. a grassy strip).

Buffers should be designed on a case by case basis, and depend on a variety of factors, such as number of houses, alternative areas of green space available, layout of the development, etc. The Trust recommends that a buffer of at least 15m is implemented between the proposed development and ancient woodland. This buffer should consist of 50% planting of semi-natural vegetation.

The implementation of a buffer consisting of hawthorn would help to prevent edge effects and garden-related problems from arising by preventing encroachment on to our site. Alternatively a grassy strip would also serve an important purpose as it will help to separate the woodland from development and encourage a phased habitat to the woodland edge.

It should be noted that gardens of adjacent housing must not be included within buffer zones as there is limited control over how they may be used, or developed in the future; for example, they might be paved or decked without the need for planning permission or they may include inappropriate species which could integrate themselves into our site. Further to this the Trust recommends that gardens of houses are not backed on to our site as they result in the increase of garden-related problems for adjacent wooded areas, i.e. waste tipping, littering, spreading of invasive and non-native plants species, disturbance, pet intrusion, etc.

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69734

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Sport England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Clarification should be made in regards to the intended future of the sports club site (Alvis) at Kings Hill.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69744

Received: 16/04/2016

Respondent: T and J Walter

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to allocation: -
- site lies within green belt - no exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated to justify its development
- loss of open space between Leamington and Kenilworth
- should consider land at Kings Hill, Westwood Heath and Hurst Farm
- park and ride unsustainable - insufficient demand and wrong location

Full text:

See attached

Concerning the process, WDC has obviously done a huge amount of work in coming up with the New Plan - congratulations to you and the team. I understand the background to the revisions, most of which are understandable, supportable and rational.
May I make a couple of suggestions to improve the consultation process which would better demonstrate WDC's commitment to consult? Your online response form is unwieldy, un-user friendly and complex. The downloadable PDF form, being a PDF, cannot easily be used by most to work up a draft response before finalising it. It would then have to be scanned to be sent in electronically. Many of the local electorate to whom you are addressing the consultation cannot cope with this process. I have converted the PDF to a Word document (to help you have my views in your preferred format) but it would be so much easier if the form was available in Word in the first place.

Attachments:

Support

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69754

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Catesby Estate Ltd & H E Johnson

Agent: Catesby Property Group

Representation Summary:

Increased justification for residential allocation of land at Red House Farm - support modifications 10, 11 and 16 to policies DS11 and DS19, which in combination propose the removal of the land at Red House Farm from the green belt for the development of 250 dwellings to meet identified needs and support regeneration in Lillington (previous site reference H04).

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69756

Received: 18/04/2016

Respondent: Mirko Draca

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

- Local residents will lose a vital green space, which is used for walking, running, etc.
- Increase in traffic and flood.
- no evidence to support proposed park and ride with flood lighting and increased traffic
- Better to build near Coventry's site.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69757

Received: 12/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs. B. Singh

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

- Local residents will lose a vital green space, which is used for walking, running, etc.
- Increase in traffic and flood.
- no evidence to support proposed park and ride with flood lighting and increased traffic
- Better to build near Coventry's site.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69758

Received: 12/04/2016

Respondent: Harnek Singh

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

- Local residents will lose a vital green space, which is used for walking, running, etc.
- Increase in traffic and flood.
- no evidence to support proposed park and ride with flood lighting and increased traffic
- Better to build near Coventry's site.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69760

Received: 12/04/2016

Respondent: Mr. Gurdev Singh

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

- Local residents will lose a vital green space, which is used for walking, running, etc.
- Increase in traffic and flood.
- no evidence to support proposed park and ride with flood lighting and increased traffic
- Better to build near Coventry's site.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69761

Received: 12/04/2016

Respondent: S. James

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

- Local residents will lose a vital green space, which is used for walking, running, etc.
- Increase in traffic and flood
- no evidence to support proposed park and ride with flood lighting and increased traffic
- Better to build near Coventry's site.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69763

Received: 15/04/2016

Respondent: Verena Kirchner

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

- Local residents will lose a vital green space, which is used for walking, running, etc.
- Increase in traffic and flood.
- no evidence to support proposed park and ride with flood lighting and increased traffic
- Better to build near Coventry's site.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69764

Received: 15/04/2016

Respondent: Deborah Brennan

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

- Local residents will lose a vital green space, which is used for walking, running, etc.
- Increase in traffic and flood.
- Better to build near Coventry's site.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69765

Received: 15/04/2016

Respondent: Tom Galea

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

- Local residents will lose a vital green space, which is used for walking, running, etc.
- Increase in traffic and flood.
- Better to build near Coventry's site.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69766

Received: 15/04/2016

Respondent: Jake Orga

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

- Local residents will lose a vital green space, which is used for walking, running, etc.
- Increase in traffic and flood.
- Better to build near Coventry's site.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69767

Received: 15/04/2016

Respondent: John Lillie

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

- Local residents will lose a vital green space, which is used for walking, running, etc.
- Increase in traffic and flood.
- Better to build near Coventry's site.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69768

Received: 15/04/2016

Respondent: L.E. Bradbury

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

- Local residents will lose a vital green space, which is used for walking, running, etc.
- Increase in traffic and flood.
- Better to build near Coventry's site.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69769

Received: 15/04/2016

Respondent: Jesse and Rebecca Ervin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

- Local residents will lose a vital green space, which is used for walking, running, etc.
- Increase in traffic and flood.
- Better to build near Coventry's site.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69770

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: G. Lightfoot

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

- Local residents will lose a vital green space, which is used for walking, running, etc.
- Increase in traffic and flood.
- Better to build near Coventry's site.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69771

Received: 12/04/2016

Respondent: Dr. Gurmit Swatt

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

- Local residents will lose a vital green space, which is used for walking, running, etc.
- Increase in traffic and flood.
- Better to build near Coventry's site.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69772

Received: 15/04/2016

Respondent: L. Johnson

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

- Local residents will lose a vital green space, which is used for walking, running, etc.
- Increase in traffic and flood.
- Better to build near Coventry's site.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69774

Received: 15/04/2016

Respondent: Dr. Helen Metcalfe

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

- Local residents will lose a vital green space, which is used for walking, running, etc.
- Increase in traffic and flood.
- Better to build near Coventry's site.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments: