Mod PM35 - Policies Map
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 68638
Received: 12/03/2016
Respondent: Mr. Ian Scott
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Object to allocation: -
- inappropriate unless substantial improvements made to road infrastructure in area
- increased congestion in area
- improvements needed to access across campus and around university
Any decision to lift Green Belt status on this land and agree planning permission for 425+ homes, initially with more in the future, allied to additional development in Burton Green & Cromwell Lane would be highly irresponsible unless and until substantial new provision was made to accommodate the increase traffic that would result.
Any policy makers should first visit the area and witness the traffic queues that already arise along Westwood Heath Road from Cromwell Lane to Kirby Corner roundabout on weekdays mornings as traffic attempts to access:
* Westwood Business Park
* Cannon Park and the A45
* Warwick University and the Kenilworth Road / A46
Likewise in the evenings, queues form back from Cromwell Lane down Westwood Heath Road as people make journeys back to Balsall Common, Kenilworth or Tile Hill.
You should fully take into account that the road across the University of Warwick campus is now restricted to 20 mph and the frequent stops made buses dropping up 80+ plus students at a time cause tail backs not only along Westwood Heath Road but back up to Cannon Park and the A45.
An alternative access route from Westwood to Kenilworth along Crackley Lane, which is already used a 'rat run' to avoid the University Campus is highly unsuited to an increase in traffic and already dangerous to both vehicular traffic and especially cyclists, due it's narrowness, sharp blind corners, and extensive pot holes especially along the verges that cause cyclists and vehicles to utilise the middle of road resulting in close misses, as I am frequently aware of as both a cyclist and driver.
Any development at Westwood would surely require the widening of Crackley Lane as an absolute minimum.
I would also suggest that the route across Warwick campus would need to be re-considered, removing the 20 mph limit, erecting barriers to protect pedestrians and construction walkways across the road instead of having students walking out in front of vehicles as they do today.
The University also now propose a new Sports complex near Kirby Corner which in itself will result in more traffic in the local area.
Furthermore you should be aware of the frequent instances of 'unlit' student cyclists around Westwood Heath, which would become even more of a danger with a rise in traffic. You may refer to the Police Liaison Team at the University to validate that issue / concern.
Finally I would invite the planners to visit the Banner brook development in Coventry and the surrounding roads where the Massey Ferguson plant once existed, on any weekday morning or evening to witness and experience the traffic congestion that has arisen following a similar large scale housing development with no foresight or appreciation of the impact on local traffic and residents. If residents aren't away from their properties by around 8 am and travelling to Westwood Park / Warwick Uni they might as well stay at home until past 9 am, or sit in a queue for an hour. The same fate would face residents of Westwood and Burton Green.
Yes we are told that new homes are required, but great thought and consideration as the infrastructure required to support such developments must be undertaken.
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 69317
Received: 17/04/2016
Respondent: Mr. David Hall
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Northwest boundaries of Modification 19 part H42 shown on Policies Map 35 are not sound because they do not accord with green belt policy under the NPPF. Properties at Old Lodge Farm and Lodge Farm House remain in green belt but do not serve any function by doing so.
See attached
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 69355
Received: 15/04/2016
Respondent: Crest Strategic Projects Limited
Agent: d2planning
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Crest support the modification of Policy Map 35 to identify land at Lodge Farm, Westwood Heath Road, Warwick for a residential led mixed use development. However, in line with our objections to Mod 16 Policy DS19 Green Belt, they object to the non allocation of part of the land under their control at Lodge Farm for residential development.
See attached
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 69568
Received: 21/04/2016
Respondent: Mr. David Michael Broadbent
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Adverse impacts of proposed development on local road infrastructure
Current infrastructure is inadequate to meet current needs, let alone future requirements
Plan and modifications do not provide clarity on precisely how objectives can be met - specifications cannot be realistically delivered without major additional infrastructure changes/improvements outside the limits of Map 35
See attached
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 69675
Received: 13/04/2016
Respondent: Mrs Lesley Tacon
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
425 new homes and land safeguarded.
Concern over additional traffic on Westwood Heath Road/Cromwell Lane/Bockendon Road not adequately planned for
See attached
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 69790
Received: 20/03/2016
Respondent: Prof. Ian Stewart
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
-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.
See attached
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 69986
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.
See attached
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 69998
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
Our client considers that Map 35 'Westwood Heath' should be amended to show land to the east of Cromwell Lane (identified on the attached plan) as removed from the Green Belt. As set out within our response to Mod 14 and Mod 16 we do not consider that our client's site fulfils the five purposes of the Green Belt as established in the National Planning Policy Framework and should therefore be
removed from the Green Belt.
See attached
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 70086
Received: 11/04/2016
Respondent: Miss Jennifer Instone
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The level of development proposed in this area is too much. More brownfield sites should be developed and utilised for flats.
See attached
Object
Proposed Modifications January 2016
Representation ID: 70248
Received: 11/04/2016
Respondent: Mr Andrew Instone
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
Coventry map - development too crowded in the area
See attached