Mod 16 - para 2.81

Object

Representation ID: 70009

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Colin Quinney

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to development in the Green Belt
Speed up delivery of sites adjacent to Coventry

Support

Representation ID: 70022

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Place Partnership Limited (PPL)

Agent: Bilfinger GVA

supports removal of further land at Leek Wootton from the Green Belt, in order to bring forward the Former Warwickshire Police HQ site forward for comprehensive housing development.

This is in line with paragraph 83 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF

Object

Representation ID: 70028

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Mr J Crocker

Agent: Framptons

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Inadequate provision has been made for the removal of land from the Green Belt to meet identified housing requirements and 'longer term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period'.
No realistically foreseeable planning strategy whereby development needs can be met, other than requiring land which is presently designated as Green Belt.
Public interest - and confidence in the plan-led planning system - is better served by excluding more land from the Green Belt and safeguarding, rather than making an inadequate provision which then requires further alteration of Green Belt boundaries on the first review of the Local Plan.

Support

Representation ID: 70043

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Barton Willmore

We support the release of the land to the east of Hatton Park from the Green Belt, which will be essential to the delivery of a sustainable residential development on this land.
In 2015, the Council undertook a review of the Joint Green Belt Study (Parcel HA1). The parcel scored 15/20 in this assessment. However, this assessment covered a wider area and thus does not accurately assess the allocation.
Therefore, we have prepared our own Landscape and Visual Appraisal of the Site - and summarises that: "this location would not result in urban sprawl or represent an encroachment into the wider countryside; it would not impact on local heritage assets or on the setting of historic Warwick; nor would it result in the coalescence between adjoining settlements. Accordingly, development could be accommodated without resulting in significant landscape and visual effects, or offending the objectives of Green Belt policy."

Object

Representation ID: 70053

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: CPRE WARWICKSHIRE

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The changes now proposed to the Green Belt represent a very substantial departure from previous plan proposals. This adds greatly to our concerns, as previously submitted, about the impact on the Green Belt. The proposed new and amended housing applications amount to an additional 500 hectares of Green Belt land to be taken in addition to earlier proposed removals such as the proposed removal of 124 hectares of Green Belt for the proposed Sub-Regional Employment Site (Policy DS16). Even more land is proposed for removal through policies DS NEW1, DS NEW2 and DS NEW4. The cumulative impact of this excessive development in the Green Belt would be immense and is not justified.
The evidence from the JGBS 2015 are ignored. The Joint Green Belt Study assessed parcels of land for their performance in terms of the national policy, specifically rating them against the five purposes defined in the NPPF. These parcels were also grouped into broad areas which were assessed for their strategic Green Belt designation. The proposed sub-regional employment site covers parcel C10 and the proposed King's Hill housing site covers parcel C14, all within Broad Area 3. Broad Area 3 is assessed as making a considerable contribution to all the purposes of the Green Belt . C10 and C14 are both rated as important in green belt terms fulfilling several of the purposes. The JGBS notes "there remain some significant areas of previously used land in the urban areas". Development in the Green Belt is excessive and is not justified, particularly when the chosen sites are some of the most sensitive. . There is no evidence that these sites, driven in part by excessive demands arising outside Warwick District, have been selected as the best available after a top-down sustainability assessment for the whole Coventry and Warwickshire Local Enterprise Partnership area and Strategic Housing Market area. Brownfield sites and other sites outside the Green Belt are suitable alternatives.

Public consultation on these proposals has been constrained solely to the issues of soundness. There has been no adequate public consultation on these key proposals at a stage when the Council was open to considering changes to its proposals. The consultation process has not allowed effective engagement of interested parties. This process is seriously flawed and does not comply with the necessary procedures for preparation of a Local Plan. Lack of adequate consultation renders the plan legally non-compliant.

Support

Representation ID: 70091

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: The Burman Family

Agent: Nigel Gough Associates Ltd

Support release of site H53
If formally adopted, land can be brought forward immediately.

Support

Representation ID: 70093

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: The Burman Family

Agent: Nigel Gough Associates Ltd

Support release of site H28 for housing

Object

Representation ID: 70104

Received: 11/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs Michele Miller

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to allocation H44: -
- changes are irrational and unreasonable
- proposals not consistent with NPPF approach to green belt protection
- boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, and development is inappropriate
- to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, all other options should have been considered - not achieved here
- sustainable sites available closer to Coventry with lower green belt value
- such sites would better meet the needs of Coventry residents
- A452 between Leamington and Kenilworth already overcrowded and dangerous -additional housing will exacerbate traffic

Object

Representation ID: 70106

Received: 11/04/2016

Respondent: Professor Christopher John Miller

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to allocation H44: -
- changes are irrational and unreasonable
- proposals not consistent with NPPF approach to green belt protection
- boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, and development is inappropriate
- to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, all other options should have been considered - not achieved here
- sustainable sites available closer to Coventry with lower green belt value
- such sites would better meet the needs of Coventry residents
- A452 between Leamington and Kenilworth already overcrowded and dangerous -additional housing will exacerbate traffic

Object

Representation ID: 70110

Received: 16/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs. Ann Mulraine

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to H44: -
- no exceptional circumstances to remove land from green belt
- green belt sites closer to Coventry that should be used in preference
- encourages commuting
- loss of open space between Kenilworth and Leamington
- A452 already at capacity - additional traffic will cause more congestion
- flood problems caused by hard surface runoff will be exacerbated by park and ride
- sufficient parking in Leamington for shoppers
- Coventry needs should be met in vicinity of Coventry

Object

Representation ID: 70115

Received: 05/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs. Geraldine Parker

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to H44: -
- no exceptional circumstances that justify removal of site from green belt
- will not support Coventry's needs as it is unlikely that people who want to live and work in Coventry will buy houses built there
- sustainable sites available closer to Coventry that should be used in preference - would reduce unnecessary commuting, inevitable congestion and more road construction

Object

Representation ID: 70120

Received: 13/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs Jane Salvin

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Development provides for Coventry's housing need.
Would generate more commuting, pollution.
Sites available on Coventry's edge of lower green belt value that should be used first.
Site is productive farmland.
Loss of wildlife habitats.

Object

Representation ID: 70125

Received: 20/04/2016

Respondent: Deeley Group Ltd.

Agent: Delta Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

WDC allocated additional housing sites to meet increased housing requirement - includes number of Green Belt sites.

Local Plan should allocate greater number /range of sites to provide choice and flexibility to meet OAN to 2029. Without flexibility, housing requirements risk not being delivered. Local Plan thus ineffective.

Local Plan allocates number of Green Belt sites for housing - already accepted that land needs to be released from Green Belt to meet requirements. Land off Home Farm in Leek Wootton and land off Friends Close in Baginton would provide suitable sites - should be allocated to provide 'boost' to supply.

Object

Representation ID: 70127

Received: 12/04/2016

Respondent: Dr Alexandra Tansey

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Exceptional circumstances for the removal of this land from the green belt 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.

Object

Representation ID: 70141

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Barton Willmore

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

OLD MILVERTON
Draw attention to the Council's evidence base, with the 2009 Joint Green Belt Review highlighting that an area covering this allocation - and an additional area to the north of Sandy Lane - formed one of the 'Least Constrained Parcels' (Parcel Ref: WL6a).
More recently, in 2015 the Council carried out a further review of the same area (Parcel Ref: RL1). The parcel scored 16/20 in this assessment. However, we have prepared our own Landscape and Visual Appraisal of the Site - which respects the boundaries of the proposed release.

Object

Representation ID: 70153

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Jane Greasley

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

This site will not support Coventry's housing need as people who want to live and work in Coventry are unlikely to buy houses here.
WDC has assessed site on the edge of Coventry as being lower value green belt sites, and these should be used in preference.
This proposal would mean the "green lung" between Kenilworth and Warwick is reduced to less than 1.5 miles. The proposals will destroy the approach to the historic town. Highly productive farmland will be lost together with wildlife habitats. This area is highly valued for recreation. The railway station would be unviable due to the construction required.
the proposed park and ride is unsustainable:
-no dedicated bus service
-the site is too close to Leamington and would be more effective closer to the A46
-traffic using the A452 crosses to the south of the towns for employment
-shoppers are unlikely to use the park and ride as there is parking in the town
-cars parks contribute to flooding risk
-

Object

Representation ID: 70157

Received: 18/04/2016

Respondent: Nicola Wall

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The land north of Leamington at Milverton should not be deleted from the green belt. It is much valued for its many recreational purposes. There is land nearer Coventry that can better meet the need of Coventry people. Old Milverton Road is already very busy it will not cope with increased traffic. The park and ride scheme is ridiculous when there is plenty of parking in Leamington Spa.

Object

Representation ID: 70163

Received: 11/04/2016

Respondent: M.B. Winn

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The removal of land from the green belt north of Leamington is not compliant with the NPPF as the exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated by Warwick District Council.
The proposed housing is to meet Coventry's housing need and the Milverton site is too far from Coventry. This housing would be best re-located nearer Coventry/ edge of Coventry.
There is very little green belt land left between Coventry and Leamington and the two towns must not be allowed to merge.
The land north of Leamington is good for farming and locally sourced food options are high on the governments agenda. It should not be lost to development.
The area north of Leamington is also a valuable recreational resource and is used by many locally. Accessibility to green spaces is an important matter that should not be overlooked.
the land in question is also subject to flooding, new building will exacerbate this matter with more run -off from built development. Alternative housing sites should be utilised.

Object

Representation ID: 70165

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Commercial Estates Group

Agent: Nexus Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Site S1 should be identified as allocation of up to 900 dwellings, rather than safeguarded. This and site allocation H42, would enable comprehensive planning of development for c1,500 dwellings in Westwood Heath. Ensure that successful integrated masterplan developed and infrastructure appropriately planned.
Given HS2 and growth pressures south of Coventry, Council could reference this as area for partial Green Belt review, should further 'special circumstances' arise. Review could take place to inform an Action Area Plan for land south of Coventry, the justification for which is set out in our representations to Policy DS20 and Policy DS NEW 1.

Object

Representation ID: 70172

Received: 18/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs Moira I Riggs

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The exceptional circumstances required by the NPPF to remove land north of Milverton from the green belt have not been demonstrated. The proposed development is to support Coventry City's housing need. The green lung between Leamington and Kenilworth will be reduced to less than 1.5 miles.
High quality farming land and valuable habitat will be lost. The north of Leamington area will lose a valued recreational area. The proposed park and ride scheme is unsustainable because there will be no dedicated bus services. There is plenty of parking in Leamington town centre.

Object

Representation ID: 70176

Received: 17/04/2016

Respondent: Alison Williams

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

These fields act as important green lung between Kenilworth and Leamington and are highly valued for recreation as well as being important for wildlife and biodiversity. This is productive farmland which also soaks away water to prevent flooding. It is unlikely that people who want to live in Coventry will want housing in Milverton.
The park and ride scheme is unnecessary and unsustainable as the site is too close to Leamington.

Object

Representation ID: 70177

Received: 19/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs J M Warr

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The housing demand is from Coventry and sites should be in that area. the increased travelling by developing here will increase congestion. The development would impact on the attractive approach to the town. High value green belt land will be lost. This is productive farm land and an important local amenity. It is also important for wildlife.
The park and ride has no decent bus service and is not of value to shoppers . Any railway station would be impossible to construct and would be too near Kenilworth station. Drainage and sewerage problems will be exacerbated by the proposed housing.

Object

Representation ID: 70191

Received: 20/04/2016

Respondent: Mr Michael Kelsey

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The removal of the land north of Leamington from the green belt is contrary to the NPPF as the exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated. As the proposed development is to cater for Coventry's unmet housing need other, less valuable green belt options should be utilised that are nearer to Coventry.
The re-use of urban brownfield sites appears to have been sidestepped in favour of the destruction of the green belt and this valuable grade 2 agricultural land.
It is considered that the removal of this area of land for development will render the remaining agricultural land holding unviable and have serious implications for the future of the remaining land and the ecosystems that exist in this locality.
The area to be removed from the green belt is a valuable recreational resource and will have ramifications that will undermine the structural separation of Leamington and Kenilworth. The allocation of this land has been driven by a 'spread the load' approach that does not optimise the use of the transport network and will lead to excessive and high cost infrastructure provision such as the park and ride which will be unnecessary and a poor use of green belt land. The allocation north of Leamington will lead to unsustainable travel patterns and it would be better if housing was built nearer to Coventry.

Object

Representation ID: 70192

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Mr. John James

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to proposal: -
- no exceptional circumstances to remove land from green belt
- sustainable sites nearer and within Coventry preferable to Milverton
- loss of valuable agricultural land
- loss of open space between Kenilworth and Leamington
- park and ride scheme is unsustainable - adequate parking available in Leamington.

Object

Representation ID: 70194

Received: 19/04/2016

Respondent: Mr. Michael Warr

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated for removal of this area from the green belt. Sites closer to Coventry would be more sustainable - for instance extra traffic would be counter-productive. The traffic would also increase pollution. The proposals also require unnecessary road improvements. The high house prices in this location are unlikely to accommodate Coventry's working population. the proposals would impact on the character and attractiveness of this area. this land is highly valued by locals and is productive farmland.

Object

Representation ID: 70195

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs. Christine James

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to allocation of H44: -
- no exceptional circumstances for loss of green belt
- new housing should be closer to Coventry - minimise congestion
- loss of gap between Kenilworth and Leamington
- loss of leisure amenity

Object

Representation ID: 70203

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs. Preeti Gupta

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

object to proposal: -
- loss of green belt will reduce open space between Kenilworth and Leamington to insufficient width
- adverse impact on character and visual amenity of Leamington
- loss of productive farmland
- loss of wildlife habitat and impact on protected species
- adverse impact on area of high amenity value

Object

Representation ID: 70204

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Miss Vishaka Gupta

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to H44: -
- loss of green open space
- loss of wildlife habitats
- adverse effect on character and amenity of town
- adverse impact on landscape

Object

Representation ID: 70223

Received: 17/04/2016

Respondent: Mr. Tim Illingworth

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The land being forwarded at north Milverton is to fulfil Coventry's unmet housing need. As such, there should be alternative provision allocated nearer to Coventry in order to utilise land of a lower green belt value and to stop the unsustainable car / transport movements that would be associated with the north Leamington site.
The exceptional circumstances for the removal of green belt north of Leamington are not made and therefore alternative provision should be found.
The separation between Kenilworth and Leamington should be preserved - the allocation of north Leamington / Milverton will erode this significantly. there are better alternatives , at mores sustainable locations in the proximity of Kings Hill/ Warwick University / Westwood Heath (all of which would qualify for funding assistance from the Government's Large Infrastructure Fund.
The proposal for a park and ride north of Leamington is also seen as an unsustainable option as such schemes only work where there is a particularly high demand from visitors or there is a significant time advantage to be gained from switching to public transport. The proposed railway station at Old Milverton is also considered unviable / deliverable.

Object

Representation ID: 70228

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Mr. Michael James Edwards

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

object to proposal: -
- poor consultation process / failure to consult
- sites disproportionate and in excess of housing requirements
- no exceptional circumstances justify green belt allocation
- other more suitable green belt sites available
- should explore compulsory purchase orders
- more suitable areas available closer to Coventry
- limited connectivity with Coventry
- should look at Bubbenhall as more suitable location
- sites not properly assessed
- poor local infrastructure, lack of services and facilities
- site at Hampton Road (43 acres) was available for sale at time of SHLAA - was not considered