Publication Draft

Object

Representation ID: 65678

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Warwickshire Gardens Trust

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Remain strongly opposed to placing about half of the proposed green field allocation on land south of Warwick because of its impact on:

Warwick Castle Park, Grade 1 listed park and a site of considerable sensitivity and historic importance. Study appended to this representation examining the historical evolution and the importance of the road as par of the design of Castle Park. Furthermore, the management of land beyond the park was considered integral to the design.

In relation to proposed strategic transport improvements the effects on Castle Park and Banbury Road approach, the setting of the Castle and the whole historic town centre.

These sites are both a profligate use of land and will generate a concentration of traffic where it will be most harmful. The proposed "mitigation" measures in the Arup report in fact are a demonstration that these large developments south of the river should not happen.

Changes to road layout will still be visually damaging to the setting of the park, castle and town, as will the additional traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 66397

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Warwickshire Gardens Trust

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Concerns at the impact of housing allocation, which occupies rising land to the west of Warwick Castle Park (Grade 1 listed) and will intrude into views from the park and from Banbury Road.

The council states it has been governed by principles set out in DS3 (protecting areas of significance, including high quality landscape) and DS4 ((b) sustainable locations close to areas of employment; (e) avoiding sites with a detrimental impact on the significance of heritage assets and (f) avoiding areas of high landscape value.) These two allocations fly in the face of that.

Object

Representation ID: 66399

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Warwickshire Gardens Trust

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Concerns at the impact of housing allocation, which occupies rising land to the west of Warwick Castle Park (Grade 1 listed) and will intrude into views from the park and from Banbury Road.

The council states it has been governed by principles set out in DS3 (protecting areas of significance, including high quality landscape) and DS4 ((b) sustainable locations close to areas of employment; (e) avoiding sites with a detrimental impact on the significance of heritage assets and (f) avoiding areas of high landscape value.) These two allocations fly in the face of that.

Object

Representation ID: 66400

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Warwickshire Gardens Trust

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

We also object to H20, part of the locally listed Barford House site.

Object

Representation ID: 66401

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Warwickshire Gardens Trust

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

We are concerned at Employment allocation 1, adjacent to the Technology Park. The technology park was originally promised to be low rise, although this was breached by the former Conoco building. It does now intrude somewhat into the rural approach to Warwick, but that should not be a reason for making a bad case worse, as is implied in the evaluation reports. E1 lies on rising ground and will consequently be much more visually intrusive.

Object

Representation ID: 66402

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Warwickshire Gardens Trust

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

We are concerned that para 3.142 appears to assign policy for development of this part of St Mary's lands to a masterplan to be produced by the tenant of the racecourse. The current proposals for this masterplan which have reached the public domain do not appear to demonstrate any environmental sensitivity and it is inappropriate for this to be a policy in the Local Plan at this stage. The text relating to this policy makes references to the heritage significance of the racecourse and common in themselves, but totally ignores the presence of the Grade II* registered Hill Close Gardens on its boundary. It is essential that any policy for development on and within the racecourse should take account of that fact.

Object

Representation ID: 66403

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Warwickshire Gardens Trust

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

We are pleased to see the reference in HE2 to the protection of the setting of conservation areas and the protection of views in and out of it. The housing proposals which will bring increased traffic into the conservation area and will impinge on the views from Banbury Road do not sit well with this policy Para 5.157 relates to the use of Article 4 directions to maintain areas of high quality townscape. We, of course, support the policy, but would wish the wording to be improved. There is an Article 4 direction on Warwick Castle Park, which could not be considered townscape. We would not wish it to be subject to challenge because of poor wording.

Support

Representation ID: 66404

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Warwickshire Gardens Trust

We support this policy. The policy states that the designated parks and gardens are defined on the policies maps. They are not, but it is important that they should be. We would suggest that locally listed parks and gardens should also be defined on the policies maps. We are aware that the boundaries are currently the subject of consultation, but this should be complete before the plan is adopted.

Support

Representation ID: 66415

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Warwickshire Gardens Trust

We are pleased to see the references to the importance of the historic character of Warwick and the place of tourism in the economy. It is unfortunate that so much of the preceding text, while nodding to the responsibility for the protection of heritage, actually then places it in a secondary position, particularly with regard to the blighting impact of additional traffic and the measures proposed to mitigate it.