Publication Draft

Object

Representation ID: 65705

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Ignis UK Property Fund

Agent: WYG Planning and Environment

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Objection is made to the allocation of Chandos Street car park for a major town centre development under Policy TC4 and its identification on the proposals map.
Ignis argue that the site allocated is not suitable to accommodate the required town centre uses because:-
* The Council's retail study identifies capacity requirements for Leamington Town Centre of 5364sqm (2013) rising to 16674sqm net sales by2029.
* TC4 allocates the current car park (0.8ha) which will not be adequate
* TC4 (Para 3.65)states that further land will be required beyond the confines of the allocated car park area therefore this allocation (identified area) is not considered sound and is inappropriate / not consistent with Government policy and its tests of soundness
* The Chandos street car park has fallen within the area of search under the current adopted local plan (policy TCP3). Despite this favourable policy position it has remained undeveloped since the adoption of the current Plan, further calling into question the allocation of this site as an achievable option.
* The Chandos street planning history casts further doubt on the soundness of this allocation. Wilson Bowden's application (W10 0340) was refused for reasons including excessive bulk and mass, impact on the conservation area, loss of traditional buildings and historic street pattern, excessive car parking, lack of measures to promote public transport.
* In order to address the reasons for refusal(many of which were fully endorsed by statutory consultees), it is clear that any revised scheme would have to be physically smaller (less retail floorspace),have lower parking ratios ,have to respect the historic street patterns, include sufficient buffers so as to respect the residential amenity of nearby properties.
In the three years since the refusal the sites promoters have failed to bring forward a replacement scheme, let alone one which addresses the above points. It is considered that this is a significant challenge and may not be achievable. It is suggested that the plan has therefore not been positively prepared and whether the allocation is a an appropriate strategy which is effective, and thus consistent with national policy as required by the tests of soundness.
To conclude the NPPF (para 182) requires the plan to be justified, effective and consistent with national policy. Site allocations in the plan should be demonstrated to be deliverable over the plan period and to be the most appropriate strategy to pursue. Given the problematical site history and the site constraints that limit the size of the development and therefore its ability to meet need it is not considered that this site allocation is sound.

Object

Representation ID: 66370

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Ignis UK Property Fund

Agent: WYG Planning and Environment

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Objection is made to the allocation of Chandos Street car park for a major town centre development under Policy TC4 and its identification on the proposals map.
Ignis argue that the site allocated is not suitable to accommodate the required town centre uses because:-
* The Council's retail study identifies capacity requirements for Leamington Town Centre of 5364sqm (2013) rising to 16674sqm net sales by2029.
* TC4 allocates the current car park (0.8ha) which will not be adequate
* TC4 (Para 3.65)states that further land will be required beyond the confines of the allocated car park area therefore this allocation (identified area) is not considered sound and is inappropriate / not consistent with Government policy and its tests of soundness
* The Chandos street car park has fallen within the area of search under the current adopted local plan (policy TCP3). Despite this favourable policy position it has remained undeveloped since the adoption of the current Plan, further calling into question the allocation of this site as an achievable option.
* The Chandos street planning history casts further doubt on the soundness of this allocation. Wilson Bowden's application (W10 0340) was refused for reasons including excessive bulk and mass, impact on the conservation area, loss of traditional buildings and historic street pattern, excessive car parking, lack of measures to promote public transport.
* In order to address the reasons for refusal(many of which were fully endorsed by statutory consultees), it is clear that any revised scheme would have to be physically smaller (less retail floorspace),have lower parking ratios ,have to respect the historic street patterns, include sufficient buffers so as to respect the residential amenity of nearby properties.
In the three years since the refusal the sites promoters have failed to bring forward a replacement scheme, let alone one which addresses the above points. It is considered that this is a significant challenge and may not be achievable. It is suggested that the plan has therefore not been positively prepared and whether the allocation is a an appropriate strategy which is effective, and thus consistent with national policy as required by the tests of soundness.
To conclude the NPPF (para 182) requires the plan to be justified, effective and consistent with national policy. Site allocations in the plan should be demonstrated to be deliverable over the plan period and to be the most appropriate strategy to pursue. Given the problematical site history and the site constraints that limit the size of the development and therefore its ability to meet need it is not considered that this site allocation is sound.

Object

Representation ID: 66373

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Ignis UK Property Fund

Agent: WYG Planning and Environment

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Ignis property UK object to the allocation of the site at Olympus Avenue/ Apollo Way as committed employment land under Policy EC3(Protecting Employment Land and Buildings) for the following reasons:-

* The basis for its allocation as committed employment land is unclear. The policy relates to existing and committed employment land and buildings. The site in question is undeveloped and comprises a greenfield site, never having been developed in the past. It cannot therefore comprise existing employment land or building.
* Paragraph 3.41 of the draft Local Plan notes that "the Districts portfolio of available employment land includes sites with planning permission, those covered by Development Briefs or allocations from the previous Local Plan". The site in question was included in the area granted outline planning permission in 1989 (W88/0385) for the wider Tachbrook Park employment area. That permission is no longer extant and in any event the land has lain undeveloped for circa 15 years. While a development brief did exist to guide the development of this wider area (adopted 1987) the opening paragraph of this document makes it clear that this was prepared pursuant to the Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth Urban Structure Plan (1979). Importantly the site was not allocated in the Local Plan for the period 1996-2011, including following its review on September 2010.
* The NPPF states that planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment uses where there is no reasonable prospect of the site bringing forward uses for that purpose and that alternative uses for land and buildings should be considered on their merits. The lack of investment over the last 15 years suggests such alternatives should be considered.
* The NPPF requires the Local Plan to be justified forming the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives based on proportionate evidence. The Council's most recent employment evidence base (Employment land Review May 2013) fails to consider the site in question for employment use and accordingly the potential to release the site for other alternative uses. Reference to
* The site is not required to meet employment land needs as the Employment land demand identified in policy DS8 includes a 16.5ha margin of flexibility. The calculation of this required margin is flawed and it is over inflated by virtue of the calculation relating to the higher development trends of the 2000-2008 period. The reduction in employment land by 1.7 ha (the area of the land in question) will have no material effect on employment objectives.
To summarise - the site is undeveloped, does not benefit from extant planning permission, is not subject to an up- to- date Development Brief and is not allocated in the previous Local Plan. Policy EC3 is simply not applicable to the land in question and its inclusion, therefore, is not coherent or justified and is therefore unsound.

Object

Representation ID: 67162

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Ignis UK Property Fund

Agent: WYG Planning and Environment

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objection is made to the allocation of Chandos Street car park for a major town centre development under Policy TC4 and its identification on the proposals map.
Ignis argue that the site allocated is not suitable to accommodate the required town centre uses because:-
* The Council's retail study identifies capacity requirements for Leamington Town Centre of 5364sqm (2013) rising to 16674sqm net sales by2029.
* TC4 allocates the current car park (0.8ha) which will not be adequate
* TC4 (Para 3.65)states that further land will be required beyond the confines of the allocated car park area therefore this allocation (identified area) is not considered sound and is inappropriate / not consistent with Government policy and its tests of soundness
* The Chandos street car park has fallen within the area of search under the current adopted local plan (policy TCP3). Despite this favourable policy position it has remained undeveloped since the adoption of the current Plan, further calling into question the allocation of this site as an achievable option.
* The Chandos street planning history casts further doubt on the soundness of this allocation. Wilson Bowden's application (W10 0340) was refused for reasons including excessive bulk and mass, impact on the conservation area, loss of traditional buildings and historic street pattern, excessive car parking, lack of measures to promote public transport.
* In order to address the reasons for refusal(many of which were fully endorsed by statutory consultees), it is clear that any revised scheme would have to be physically smaller (less retail floorspace),have lower parking ratios ,have to respect the historic street patterns, include sufficient buffers so as to respect the residential amenity of nearby properties.
In the three years since the refusal the sites promoters have failed to bring forward a replacement scheme, let alone one which addresses the above points. It is considered that this is a significant challenge and may not be achievable. It is suggested that the plan has therefore not been positively prepared and whether the allocation is a an appropriate strategy which is effective, and thus consistent with national policy as required by the tests of soundness.
To conclude the NPPF (para 182) requires the plan to be justified, effective and consistent with national policy. Site allocations in the plan should be demonstrated to be deliverable over the plan period and to be the most appropriate strategy to pursue. Given the problematical site history and the site constraints that limit the size of the development and therefore its ability to meet need it is not considered that this site allocation is sound.