Preferred Options

Support

Representation ID: 50062

Received: 20/07/2012

Respondent: RPS Planning & Development

Further to our previous representations we welcome the fact that the Preferred Options document now acknowledges the importance of Culture & Tourism to the District with the provision of its own section. Indeed, we particularly welcome specific acknowledgment of Hatton Country World as an attraction. (It may be appropriate to change the reference to 'The Hatton Estate' so that it encompasses all the tourism activities on the site, including the Hatton Arms and the network of permissive footpaths, and does not become out of date should the branding of the site change again).

Object

Representation ID: 50065

Received: 20/07/2012

Respondent: RPS Planning & Development

The scope of policy PO17 is far too narrow. Its support for "new visitor attractions and cultural assets" is too narrow in that it does not provide support to existing tourist attractions. This is inconsistent with the Government's policy as set out within the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 50075

Received: 20/07/2012

Respondent: RPS Planning & Development

Reference should be made within PO17 to Hatton Estate and its objectives as it provides significant employment and prosperity to the local area and should be afforded the opportunity to evolve to meet the challenges the business will inevitably face over the plan period. Suggested wording detailed below.

Object

Representation ID: 50079

Received: 20/07/2012

Respondent: RPS Planning & Development

We consider it may be more appropriate to identify 'previously developed sites' in the Green Belt where limited infilling would be acceptable, to replace the 'major developed sites'. On this basis, we suggest that the Local Plan should have a policy which identifies the key previously developed sites, including the main developed part of the Hatton Estate (the Farm Village and Shopping Village), in the same way as current Local Plan policy SSP2 identified Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt. This provision should be incorporated into policy PO16 in the same way that it identifies villages removed from the Green Belt. The boundary shown in Figure 1 should be used to identify the site in the Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 50081

Received: 20/07/2012

Respondent: RPS Planning & Development

The wording of the last bullet of policy PO16 (C) is considered to be particularly poorly worded at present, as it is not clear whether Part C applies to all previously-developed land, or only previously-developed land in Category 3 villages. If the latter, this is much more restrictive than the NPPF. We suggest that the final bullet point of Policy PO16 is reworded as detailed below.

Object

Representation ID: 50085

Received: 20/07/2012

Respondent: RPS Planning & Development

The NPPF requires planning authorities to use their evidence base to ensure the Local Plan meets the full objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing. The Preferred Options identified a projected employment growth of about 700 units per annum but this was rejected as it would require the use of greenfield and greenbelt sites. There is no basis for such an approach unless it can be objectively demonstrated that it would lead to significant adverse impacts. The NPPF recognises that the supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning for large scale development. Accordingly meeting the needs of the housing market area should not be so readily disregarded without objectively assessing the potential of housing sites on the edge of settlements or within the countryside/green belt.

Object

Representation ID: 50088

Received: 20/07/2012

Respondent: RPS Planning & Development

The local plan must address the extent to which (if at all) it is intended to help meets the needs of Coventry, which is tightly bounded in most directions. This is particularly important in relation to the Council's duty to co-operate requirement. We are therefore concerned that the level of housing identified will not be sufficient to meet the objectively assessed needs.

Support

Representation ID: 50089

Received: 20/07/2012

Respondent: RPS Planning & Development

The Council's approach to the Distribution of Sites for Housing through policy PO4 is broadly welcomed in principle, because it envisages new housing in rural villages as well as further development in the main settlements.

Object

Representation ID: 50090

Received: 20/07/2012

Respondent: RPS Planning & Development

The scale of housing development identified for Hatton (and it is not clear if the reference to 'Hatton' in the Plan includes Hatton Station and Hatton Park) is low given the potential availability of small scale extension sites. Our client has circa. 4.5Ha of land across three sites (see site Plan) on the edge of Hatton Station, and a further site on the edge of Hatton Park which would be able to deliver sustainable communities phased across the plan period without resulting in significant adverse impacts on any of the dimensions of sustainable development, and are identified in the Council's SHLAA. It is, therefore, suggested that, in addition to brownfield land within extended village envelopes and greenfield infill sites, small scale village extensions should also be allocated where appropriate, to meet the District's housing requirements rather than relying on windfall projections. Policy PO4 should be amended to reflect this and allow for a proportion of the District's housing growth to be on allocated greenfield sites adjacent to the villages.