Publication Draft

Support

Representation ID: 65998

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Mr H E Johnson

Agent: Bond Dickinson

We support the Council's stated aim to provide in full for the Objectively Assessed Housing Need in accordance with paragraph 47 of the NPPF.

Support

Representation ID: 66260

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Mr H E Johnson

Agent: Bond Dickinson

We support the Council's aim of supporting sustainable communities by providing high quality new development.

Support

Representation ID: 66261

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Mr H E Johnson

Agent: Bond Dickinson

Support overall strategy. Agree that it is clear from the Joint SHMA that the level of housing required to meet identified need provides exceptional circumstances to justify some removal of land from the green belt. Recent cases makes the NPPF requirement to ensure Local Plans meet their full, objectively assessed need 'not just a material consideration, but a consideration of particular standing'. We support the Council in identifying the Red House Farm land as a Green Belt release: the reasons for the exceptional circumstances required to support such a release are to meet the identified housing need and to support the regeneration of a deprived area.

Support

Representation ID: 66262

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Mr H E Johnson

Agent: Bond Dickinson

We support the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the commitment that planning applications which accord with the policies in this Local Plan will be approved without delay

Object

Representation ID: 66282

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Mr H E Johnson

Agent: Bond Dickinson

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Welcome increase in housing numbers from the Revised Development Strategy however objects to the level of housing growth identified in the plan for the following reasons: The Council appears to have taken the figures from the 2011 CLG Interim Housing Projections and inserted them into the Local Plan without aligning these figures with other aspirations of the Plan. The objectively assessed need is therefore not provided for and it does not accord with the NPPF. The result of this will be an under delivery of homes against the identified need. The NPPF requires an additional buffer of at least 5% of housing need to ensure choice and competition in the market. Bearing in mind the historic under delivery in the area and the potential requirement to meet identified need in other local authority areas it is clear the council will have to bring forward housing from later plan periods and consequently fall short later on. The Council has ignored the advice of the Joint SHMA which recommends 720 dwellings per annum. Concern that the Council has not sufficiently discharged ita duty to cooperate, it is very likely that additional housing will be needed in Warwick District to meet the needs of the HMA. Recent Gallagher Homes case reinforces this point. It is therefore considered that the proposed housing requirement should be increased and further land should be allocated . The proposed extension at Red House Farm could provide a further 150 homes and should be removed from the Green Belt and allocated for housing.

Object

Representation ID: 66283

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Mr H E Johnson

Agent: Bond Dickinson

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Welcome increase in housing numbers from the Revised Development Strategy. we object to the proposed spread of numbers between different sources of housing delivery, and we object to the limited overall housing numbers proposed. Half of overall housing delivery is identified as being from existing committed sites. This is risky as there are many reasons why windfall sites do not come forward for development. There appears to be a vast over-reliance on assumed delivery from these sources (over 50%). This is unsound as it is not justified or effective: it can be reasonably foreseen that there will be insufficient housing delivery. A buffer should be included for non-delivery and additional allocations should therefore be identified in order to make this policy sound. Within the site allocations currently identified, there is too much reliance on two large sites (HO1 and HO2) which puts successful housing delivery at further risk.

Object

Representation ID: 66284

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Mr H E Johnson

Agent: Bond Dickinson

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Support allocation of Red House Farm. It will assist in the Council's aim of regenerating Lillington one of the most deprived wards in Warwickshire. However object to proposed number of dwelli8ngs on the site - The net developable area of the existing proposed allocation at Red House Farm, excluding the Glebe Farm land which currently forms part of this allocation, is nearer 300. Increasing the number of houses will maximise and enhance the regenerative benefits that can be provided. Excluding the Glebe Farm allocation, which is not necessary or desirable given its more prominent position and extending the Red House Farm allocation can deliver a total of around 450 dwellings. Extended site would enhance regeneration benefits provide additional benefits including good quality open spoace, a new defendable green belt boundary, increased scope for public transport, more options for walking and cycling together with a bridge over the canal to connect to the Tow Path (all within the ownership of Mr Johnson). Also object to the reliance on two large sites (namely HO1 and HO2) for a significant proportion of the site allocation's housing delivery (around 43.5%)

Object

Representation ID: 66285

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Mr H E Johnson

Agent: Bond Dickinson

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Support and welcome the opportunity to provide a development brief or masterplan for the proposed development at Red House Farm. However this requirement should not preclude development coming forward in advance of such document being agreed with the Council. As drafted, this policy is unsound as it may cause unnecessary delay to housing delivery and it is therefore not positively prepared. To make it sound the policy should include some flexibility about the timing of the production of a development brief or masterplan. Any development brief or masterplan should be considered acceptable for the Red House Farm site if it excludes the Glebe Farm land.

Support

Representation ID: 66288

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Mr H E Johnson

Agent: Bond Dickinson

We support the regeneration of Lillington, including its Local Shopping Centre.

Support

Representation ID: 66289

Received: 26/06/2014

Respondent: Mr H E Johnson

Agent: Bond Dickinson

We support the confirmation that Green Belt policy will follow that set out in national policy. On that basis, the Green Belt boundary should be long term and defensible, and safeguarded land should be identified in this Local Plan in accordance with NPPF paragraph 85.