Mod 16 - para 2.81

Object

Representation ID: 70256

Received: 20/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs Ann Kelsey

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

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

Object

Representation ID: 70259

Received: 19/04/2016

Respondent: Rob & Donna Clifton

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

- Sites should be considered near or within Coventry City to fulfil Coventry's requirement.
- Loss of highly productive farming land and wildlife habitat.
- Park and ride scheme will increase length of time for commuters journey and add to congestion.

Object

Representation ID: 70268

Received: 20/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Wilkie

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Green belt boundaries should only be changed in exceptional circumstances and is not justified in this case.
Hatton Park should not be considered a "growth village" as it does not have amenities such as schools and doctors that are required to justify changing the green belt boundary.

Object

Representation ID: 70272

Received: 17/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs. Jacqueline Webb

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Exceptional Circumstances required by NPPF to remove land north of Milverton from Green Belt have not been demonstrated by WDC.
There are suitable sites closer to Coventry that should be utilised in preference to the land North of Milverton, close to sustainable transport, existing road links, community facilities and employment opportunities.
WDC is artificially creating an area of 'Safeguarded' land which is not compliant with NPPF advice.
It is necessary to prevent development around Old Milverton Village because of the important contribution which the open character of this historic village makes to the openness of the Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 70273

Received: 20/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs. Susan Robinson

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I do not consider the exceptional circumstances required to remove land from the green belt have been demonstrated by WDC. The area proposed is too far away to assist workers in Coventry. The green belt offered the only countryside for local residents to enjoy with leisure time and a natural habitat for wildlife for the area.

Object

Representation ID: 70276

Received: 12/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs. Christine Sutton

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

If land is to support Coventry's needs, unlikely that people from Coventry will live here.
Suitable sites closer to Coventry on land of lower green belt value.
Loss of farmland.
Park and ride unworkable - no dedicated buses and sufficient parking in Leamington.

Object

Representation ID: 70279

Received: 07/04/2016

Respondent: Anna Trye

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The exceptional circumstances for the removal of this land from the green belt are not made/ demonstrated.
Residents of Leamington Spa use this area in large numbers and it is a valuable recreational resource.
The green lung between Leamington and Kenilworth will be reduced to only one and a half miles which is unacceptable.
This development would exacerbate traffic congestion that is already bad in this area of Leamington.
There are land options closer to Coventry that are more relevant / better options as the allocations are intended to provide for Coventry overspill.

Object

Representation ID: 70301

Received: 23/04/2016

Respondent: Hazel and Robin Fryer

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Coventry's refusal to consider building on land in the Meriden Gap should be challenged by WDC as this Green Belt land has no more value or legal protection than the Kings Hill or Baginton Green Belt land. The map attached below on page 4 shows alternate locations for Coventry's housing and employment site which would be less damaging to WDC. The lack of consideration by WDC for alternative sites shows that the WDC Local Plan has not been positively prepared.