Mod 16 - para 2.81

Object

Representation ID: 69775

Received: 15/04/2016

Respondent: Mr. David Llewelyn

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

- 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.

Object

Representation ID: 69776

Received: 15/04/2016

Respondent: Mr. Jackie McLellan

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

- 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.

Object

Representation ID: 69777

Received: 15/04/2016

Respondent: Antonia Stewart

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

- 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.

Object

Representation ID: 69778

Received: 15/04/2016

Respondent: Nigel Johnson

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

- 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.

Object

Representation ID: 69779

Received: 15/04/2016

Respondent: D Johnson

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

- 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.

Object

Representation ID: 69781

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Residents Objecting to Development at Milverton 352

Number of people: 352

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

- Exceptional Circumstances for removal of land from the Green Belt have not been demonstrated.
- Sustainable sites available near Coventry for fulfilling Coventry's housing needs.
- The 'green lung' between Leamington and Kenilworth will reduce.
- Highly productive land and wild life habitat will be lost.
- Proposed park and ride is unsustainable as there will be no dedicated buses, site is too close to Leamington, shoppers are unlikely to use when there is plenty of parking in Leamington.

Object

Representation ID: 69798

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Bubbenhall Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Public consultation has been constrained to the issues of soundness. No adequate public consultation on key proposals at a stage when the Council was open to considering changes. Lack of adequate consultation renders element of the plan legally non-compliant.
NPPF states Green Belt is an areas where there is no presumption in favour of development. The erosion of the southern boundary of the city of Coventry and the harm to the villages of Baginton and Bubbenhall in terms of traffic, air and light pollution, noise, has not been given sufficient consideration. There are no 'very special circumstances' to justify development.

Object

Representation ID: 69802

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Bubbenhall Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Joint Green Belt Study of June 2015 is listed in the Evidence Base, but its findings ignored. The associated SA Addendum makes a single mention of the JGBS with reference to Baginton as a growth village, recognizing that the JGBS 'found that the parcel of land (C14) comprising the Rosswood Farm site (H19) represents the principal protector of the countryside from further encroachment' and consequently the SA concluded that Rosswood Farm development in Baginton would have 'major negative effects on the Prudent Use of Land and Natural Resources).
The SA acknowledges the proposed urban extensions south of Coventry would have cumulative and potentially major negative effects on landscape, visual amenity and openness through loss of Green Belt and that these would remain even after mitigation.
Development in the Green Belt is excessive and not justified, particularly when the chosen sites are some of the most sensitive parts of Green Belt. The plan is unsound because it has not taken account of the Joint Green Belt Study.

Object

Representation ID: 69808

Received: 19/04/2016

Respondent: Miss Surpriya Jarnail

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

-Development plan is for Coventry's needs then use area nearer to Coventry.
-Land preserved in green belt area is home to wild life.
-Park and ride facilities is not worth as many commuters will not find this desirable and also cause an increased risk of flooding. Leamington has good parking.
-Proposed plan is destroying the fields that provide open air, a beautiful open view to nature.

Object

Representation ID: 69809

Received: 19/04/2016

Respondent: Mr. Amdik Jarnail

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

-Site nearer to Coventry should be found to fulfil their requirements.
-Increase in traffic will arise and cause increase in pollution, poor air quality, congestion, increased commuting time, etc.
-Park and Ride scheme not beneficial - town centre has available parking.
- Additional facilities like police patrol, wastage control, street clean ups, road lighting will be required will leads to increase in costs as well.
- risk of flooding.

Object

Representation ID: 69813

Received: 14/04/2016

Respondent: Mr. Graham John Hunt

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

-Density of development means flood risk, loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat.
-Highly productive farming land will be lost.
-Traffic on A452 will be increased.
-Widening A452 then houses may have to be destroyed, trees cut down.

Object

Representation ID: 69827

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Miss Mary Gallagher

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to proposals: -
- no exceptional circumstances demonstrated for removal of site from green belt
- more appropriate sites within and closer to Coventry
- park and ride inappropriate - no demand or services
- loss of farmland
- adverse impact on local residential and recreational amenity
- adverse impact on wildlife
- loss of open space between Leamington and Kenilworth
- people wanting to live in Coventry won't want to live in Milverton

Object

Representation ID: 69854

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: 69863

Received: 17/04/2016

Respondent: Mr Brian Taylor

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to proposal: -
- No exceptional circumstances for removing site from green belt
- alternative sites available closer to Coventry
- sites on edge of Coventry of lower green belt value
- reduction of gap between Leamington and Kenilworth
- adverse impact on landscape
- loss of farming land
- adverse impact on recreational amenity
- unsustainable park and ride
- P&R too close to Leamington - should be focussed on A46
- number of car parks in area
- unviable railway station

Object

Representation ID: 69871

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Ms. Natalie Matheson

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

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

Object

Representation ID: 69872

Received: 10/04/2016

Respondent: Mr. Philip Oliver

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

High performing Green Belt land should not be allocated:
Exceptional circumstances not demonstrated.
Low / medium performing green belt land should take priority.
Site not near Coventry - increase commuting, traffic, congestion, pollution and travel time. Housing for Coventry should be close to Coventry.
Adverse impact on over-capacity road infrastructure
Enough parking in Leamington - no justification for park and ride scheme.
Train station could be provided in Old Milverton - Kenilworth station (7km) not open after five years
Station in Milverton not realistic and should be removed from speculative proposals.
Article: http://www.kenilworthweeklynews.co.uk/news/local-news/kenilworth-station-opening-could-be-delayed-until-august-2017-1-7198175

Object

Representation ID: 69879

Received: 02/05/2016

Respondent: Mr Nick Corcoran

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to proposals: -
- modifications 14 & 16, contravene elements of the NPPF
- cannot guarantee that houses will be bought by people from Coventry
- adverse impact on landscape, environment, heritage and recreational amenities
- should allocate land closer to Coventry
- lack of technical evidence to support allocation
- loss of green belt
- loss of agricultural land
- increase in pollution
- proposed park and ride and train station unfeasible
- more appropriate locations available
- safeguarded land a direct encroachment into green belt

Object

Representation ID: 69887

Received: 18/04/2016

Respondent: Suzanne Robbins

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? No

Object to proposals: -
- No exceptional circumstances exist to justify removal of land at old Milverton from green belt.
- contrary to national and government policy
- alternative non-green belt sites available
- Kings Hill a better site than Milverton
- will generate additional traffic and congestion
- adverse impacts on environment, character and appearance of area
- adverse impact on local facilities and services
- loss of recreational amenity
- WDC has sufficient five-year supply of housing land
- in breach of human rights legislation

Object

Representation ID: 69890

Received: 19/04/2016

Respondent: Oliver Le Maistre

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

-The "exceptional circumstances" required by the NPPF to remove the land north of Milverton from the greenbelt have not been demonstrated.
-The "green lung" between Leamington and Kenilworth will be reduced to less than 1 1/2 miles.

Object

Representation ID: 69892

Received: 19/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs. Renu Patla

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

- land designated as green belt
- additional congestion will be generated
- natural habitats and wildlife will be destroyed.
- homes to be built are being designated in the wrong area.
- overcrowding in this area would affect peacefulness and freedom.
- adverse impacts on air quality, traffic, increased risk of accidents.
- park and ride scheme not beneficial as parking available in town

Object

Representation ID: 69896

Received: 19/04/2016

Respondent: Mr T Singh

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

- 'Exceptional circumstances' not demonstrated as required by NPPF.
- Increase in traffic congestion
- Loss of green belt land for farming and wildlife habitat.
- Park and ride scheme is unsustainable
- building in Leamington to meet Coventry needs not helpful
- site available in Coventry

Support

Representation ID: 69904

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Hatton Estate

Agent: Barton Willmore

Support Council's approach to releasing land from the Green Belt to meet housing needs inside and outside District.

Support

Representation ID: 69909

Received: 20/04/2016

Respondent: A C Lloyd Homes Ltd

Agent: Delta Planning

support removal of land from the Green Belt and allocation for housing
support for allocations H29 & H30

Object

Representation ID: 69912

Received: 20/04/2016

Respondent: Mr Michael Tansey

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

There are increasing demands on greenbelt. The current proposals remove a significant area of green belt in area which is valuable at farmland and its removal would urbanise an unnecessary area bringing closer Leamington and Kenilworth not to mention significant transport/commuting problems.

Support

Representation ID: 69941

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Godfrey-Payton

Agent: Godfrey-Payton

We wish to make representations to support the removal of land from the Green Belt namely Policies Map 20 ref H51 - Hampton Magna land south of Lloyd Close. The proposal site forms a natural line of development and is well integrated with the existing development pattern of Hampton Magna.

The land is available for development and can be delivered within the required timescale

Object

Representation ID: 69947

Received: 20/04/2016

Respondent: Oaklands Farm and AC Lloyd Homes

Agent: Delta Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Local Plan should allocate a greater number and range of sites to provide choice and flexibility to meet OAN. Without flexible approach, housing requirements are at risk of not being delivered. The Local Plan would therefore be ineffective.

Plan allocates Green Belt sites for housing - accepted that some land needs to be released from the Green Belt to meet District's housing land requirements. Land at Oaklands Farm, a partially developed site in the Green Belt, would provide a suitable housing site and should be allocated to provide a further 'boost' to the supply.

Support

Representation ID: 69956

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: University of Warwick

Agent: Turley

The University acknowledges that the proposed removal of land at Westwood Heath from the Green Belt will adjoin the proposed removal of the University campus from the Green Belt but considers that the new boundary provides a logical and defensible boundary consistent with the NPPF which will protect the gap between Coventry and Kenilworth.

Object

Representation ID: 69962

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Jaguar Land Rover

Agent: Gerald Eve LLP

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The existing site at Fen End currently accommodates some of JLR's product research, vehicle testing and development facilities and includes a test track. It is a long established employment sites. JLR have planning permission for "the erection of a building to accommodate the vehicle operations division of Jaguar Land Rover, and ancillary works including car parking, 'work in progress' storage areas for part-prepared vehicles, amendments to the existing vehicle track circuit, track and infield access, site access, landscaping and other ancillary works". The Strategic Employment Land Study (Oct 2014) identifies Fen End as a key strategic employment site which can provide a significant contribution to economic growth over the plan period. Policy DS19 as currently drafted has been positively prepared, nor is it consistent with national policy. Object to the draft policy on the basis that the Fen End site, which has been identified as an important
investment site in the Updated SELS is not included as a site to be removed from the Green Belt. The site has not been assessed in the Green Belt Review but it is not considered that the site makes a significant contribution to the GB and does not fulfil any of the purposes. Further, the site has defensible boundaries, would not lead to merging or encroachment in to Countryside,. the allocation of the site for employment would not have a detrimental impact on urban regeneration as it is established as an employment site.
The permission is implemented and so large scale development is established. However maintaining the openness of the site should be considered against its potential for economic benefits and future growth. the designation of the site within the GB could act as a barrier to economic growth by limiting ability to adapt to global changes.

Object

Representation ID: 69985

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: The Kler Group

Agent: Barton Willmore

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The site at the Peeping Tom Public House, Burton Green is available, and suitable to provide additional housing in Burton Green. The village is affected by HS2. One of the consequences of this is that the allocated site at Burrow Hill Nursery is unlikely to come forward before HS2 is complete. The plan therefore provides no flexibility for the delivery of housing in the village. Further, the Plan does not take account the loss and abandonment of homes as a result of HS2 is we have estimated at around 55 dwellings or 20.91% of the housing stock in the village. Further land therefore needs to be allocated. The site at Cromwell Lane would be a suitable Green Belt release and is isolated from HS2. Evidence has previously been submitted - centrally located, close to public transport and employment opportunities. Vehicular access can be achieved and work has been undertaken to demonstrate landscape and visual impacts are acceptable. Further the site can delivered in 5 years. A similar site to the north is proposed for allocation in Coventry's Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 69994

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

The site at Cromwell Lane does not serve to meet the 5 purposes of the green belt.
Given the scale of the proposed allocation at Westwood Heath Road our clients site does not prevent the unrestricted sprawl of built up area nor does it prevent towns merging. The site does not safeguard the countryside from encroachment being bound by properties on three sides. Through careful and sensitive design the development of the site will not harm the special character of Burton Green.