Mod 17

Showing comments and forms 1 to 20 of 20

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 68387

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Cryfield Land (Kenilworth) Ltd

Agent: Mr Niall Crabb

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Whilst not objecting to the proposed modification wording, there is an associated concern that, at various other sections e.g. DS New 1, it is stated and/or implied that other known issues will be resolved by way of an additional Masterplan and/or Plan Review relating to an undefined area south of Coventry.
If the issue is known about it should be resolved NOW and certainly as part of the current Examination of the Plan, including its soundness.

Full text:

Whilst not objecting to the proposed modification wording, there is an associated concern that, at various other sections e.g. DS New 1, it is stated and/or implied that other known issues will be resolved by way of an additional Masterplan and/or Plan Review relating to an undefined area south of Coventry.
If the issue is known about it should be resolved NOW and certainly as part of the current Examination of the Plan, including its soundness.

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 68555

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: The Richborough Estates Partnership LLP

Agent: Star Planning and Development

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The Richborough Estates Partnership LLP welcome the commitment to reviewing the Local Plan if there is a material change in circumstance. It would, however, be more appropriate for MOD17 and MOD18 to be consolidated and simplified.

Further, the criterion concerning up-dated household and population projections should be clarified to make is clear that the Local Plan will be reviewed where:

(f) Updating of the population and household forecasts which indicate that there is potential for a meaningful change to objectively assessed housing need used as the basis for the preparation of this Local Plan.

Full text:

The Richborough Estates Partnership LLP welcome the commitment to reviewing the Local Plan if there is a material change in circumstance. It would, however, be more appropriate for MOD17 and MOD18 to be consolidated and simplified.

Further, the criterion concerning up-dated household and population projections should be clarified to make is clear that the Local Plan will be reviewed where:

(f) Updating of the population and household forecasts which indicate that there is potential for a meaningful change to objectively assessed housing need used as the basis for the preparation of this Local Plan.

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 68570

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Mr JOHN BOILEAU

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The Duty to Co-operate does not require WDC to volunteer to help a neighbouring authority to the extend that WDC takes reponsibility for solving a problem on that other authoity's behalf. It requires WDC only to cooperate to help that other authority meet proven needs once that authority has exhausted other areas of exploration.

Full text:

The Duty to Co-operate does not require WDC to volunteer to help a neighbouring authority to the extend that WDC takes reponsibility for solving a problem on that other authoity's behalf. It requires WDC only to cooperate to help that other authority meet proven needs once that authority has exhausted other areas of exploration.

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69029

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: CEG Steel/Pittaway

Agent: Nexus Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Policy DS20 identifies a Local Plan review mechanism that will be triggered if a range of circumstances arise, generally relating to issues that would affect the District as a whole and are not necessarily unique to Warwick, i.e. changes in national planning policy.
WDC should require the preparation of an Area Action Plan (AAP) for the wider area south of Coventry, rather than dealing with it through a partial review of the Local Plan.
Policy DS20 "Review of the Local Plan" is not „justified‟ by failing to be the most appropriate strategy for the District.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69034

Received: 12/04/2016

Respondent: Baginton Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Object to removal of green belt status from village - will allow inappropriate development to take place
Object to removal of Rosswood Farm site from green belt
Object to removal of green belt from Map 8 for sub-regional employment - contrary to green belt review and subject to dismissal at appeal

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69217

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Barwood Development Securities Ltd

Agent: HOW Planning LLP

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Should Nuneaton and Bedworth remain removed from the MOU, and the HMA distribution of development remain as set out at Table 1, then on adoption the Local Plan would immediately trigger an early review.
It would be beneficial if the policy contained a trigger mechanism, specifically in respect of the monitoring of housing delivery, to ensure that the policy is not ambiguous.
As drafted, Clause (D) is not meaningful and should be reviewed in order to provide a clear policy.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69511

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Home Builders Federation Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

This is a serious failing of co-operation between the C&W HMA authorities which has consequences for the soundness of individual Local Plans. Therefore the question remains whether or not the proposed Modifications 17 & 18 to Policy DS20 which set out triggers to action a review of the Warwick Local Plan adequately deal with and resolve the strategic matter of unmet housing needs arising in the C&W HMA.

It is also uncertain whether Modifications 17 to Policy DS20 cover the relationship between the C&W HMA and adjacent HMAs in which unmet housing needs are also arising, for example in Birmingham.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69599

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: Lenco Investments

Agent: RPS Planning & Development

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Welcome the objective behind this policy, though the mechanism for implementation needs to be adjusted.
New evidence could be presented not long after adoption that would leave the Council rethinking its approach and potentially be left with a document that is out of date. Preferable to include provisions within the policy that introduces additional flexibility e.g. as undertaken in Stratford recently.
Council should seek to include a similar approach as part of the Local Plan, which would be consistent with paragraph 182 of the NPPF, introducing an effective and positively prepared strategy.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69799

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Bubbenhall Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The proposal that Warwick district should take the largest share of Coventry's unmet housing need is unsound, given the Green Belt status of a large part. The NPPF requires that unmet needs from neighbouring authorities should only be accommodated 'when it reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development'. Para 14 footnote 9 specifically excludes land in Green Belt.
Insufficient attention has been paid to infrastructure, and pressure on local roads. The proposed development at King's Hill and the proposed sub-regional employment site (DS16) and 80 houses at Rosswood Farm in Baginton (H19) will generate intolerable amounts of traffic through the villages of Stoneleigh, Baginton and Bubbenhall.
The policy has not paid sufficient attention to the Joint Green Belt Study 2015.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69839

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

DS20 should also make provision for the need to relate the plan to reduction as well as growth if the need for housing is reduced by forthcoming household projections. Growth relates to economic growth not physical growth that cannot be sustained.

Suggested amendments to para a) are included in the full text

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69905

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Hatton Estate

Agent: Barton Willmore

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Council intends to schedule a partial Plan Review within five years of the adoption date of this Plan. However, response to this new Policy is consistent with the view of the Inspector's interim response to the Stratford Core Strategy, in that a reserve housing policy would provide the Plan with flexibility to rapidly respond to changing circumstances which would be less resource intensive than a Plan review.

Full text:

see attached

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69931

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Gladman have concerns therefore that the Local Plan is not fully dealing with the issue of unmet need. In that context we

question the soundness of the current mechanism for plan review, which in theory could trigger an immediate review of the Local Plan. It would seem sensible to deal with these issues now.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69944

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Cerda Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Modification 17 notes that there would be a full or partial review of the Plan if changing circumstances could not be accommodated within the existing strategy.

Accordingly, the Plan is not considered sound in so far as there is insufficient flexibility to cater for either i) sites not coming forward for development or ii) greater than anticipated
levels of demand

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Support

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69957

Received: 21/04/2016

Respondent: University of Warwick

Agent: Turley

Representation Summary:

The University notes that one of the new criteria for reviewing the Local Plan is "development and growth pressures arising from the specific circumstances in the area to the south of Coventry". This again is a cross reference to Policy DS NEW1 and the University strongly supports a consistent long term view being taken of the need to facilitate its growth including infrastructure improvements.

Full text:

See attached

Support

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69971

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: Barton Willmore

Representation Summary:

RADFORD SEMELE - Support the revised wording to this Policy which details the review (partial or whole) of the Local Plan. It is considered important to review the Plan particularly if it transpires through monitoring that the overall development strategy is not being met.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69975

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Gallagher Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

We reserve out position as to whether the proposed triggers set out within Proposed
Modification 17 and 18 will adequately deal with and resolves the strategic matter of unmet housing need arising in the Coventry and Warwickshire HMA given the current level of uncertainty surrounding whether Nuneaton and Bedworth will assist in meeting the needs of C&W HMA and what likely impact this may have on the soundness of the Warwick Local Plan.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69979

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Grevayne Properties Ltd

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Mod 17 states that there would be a full or partial review of the plan if changing circumstances could not be accommodated within the existing strategy. The current
strategy to provide a 4.5% buffer would therefore only be sufficient to deal with minor changes to the in demand or supply restrictions and as such

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 69996

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Richard & Janel, Vince & Caroline Hill & McCullagh

Agent: Turley Associates

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Our client supports the Council's acknowledgement that the plan will be reviewed prior to the end of the Plan Period
if a number of events are triggered. In particular our client notes that one of the new criteria for reviewing the Local Plan is "development and growth pressures arising from the specific circumstances in the area to the south of
Coventry (as identified in Policy DS New 1)". However, our part (C) is not sufficiently precise. It should be amended to clarify how "not delivery" is defined. Our client considers that in order to ensure that either a full or partial review of the Plan is not required early in the
Plan Period the Council should allocate sufficient land within the Plan to ensure that the Council can meet both its
own full objectively assessed housing needs and that of other local authorities if demonstrated as necessary.
In order to help achieve this, the Council should remove our client's site from the Green Belt in order that it can be brought forward for development in order to assist the Council in meeting its own housing need and that of other
authorities.

Full text:

See attached

Support

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70013

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: Barton Willmore

Representation Summary:

BISHOPS TACHBROOK
Support revised wording to Policy which details the review (partial or whole) of the Local Plan. It is considered important to review the Plan particularly if it transpires through monitoring that the overall development strategy is not being met.

Full text:

See attached

Object

Proposed Modifications January 2016

Representation ID: 70166

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Commercial Estates Group

Agent: Nexus Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Specific set of circumstances exist in the area south of Coventry that could warrant a review of the Local Plan. No other part of the District is under similar pressures or likely to experience such transformational change.
Suggest joint allocation of H42 and S1.
WDC should require an Area Action Plan for wider area south of Coventry rather than partial review of plan.
To establish a "policy hook‟ and to give landowners and developers greater certainly and confidence, the broad area could be referenced in the Local Plan with the exact extent determined through the preparation of the AAP itself.

Full text:

See attached