Publication Draft

Object

Representation ID: 65718

Received: 25/06/2014

Respondent: Court (Warwick) Ltd

Agent: Stansgate Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Identification of Stoneleigh as Limited Infill Village is supported but it is considered that the forms of development likely to be permitted are unnecessarily restrictive/inflexible, and as a result the Plan will not deliver the level of windfalls required to meet the housing needs. Plan therefore is ineffective/unsound.
Limitation on use of garden land in Policy H1 is deemed unnecessary/redundant in that impacts of a development are to be considered under other Plan policies. No policy objection in principle to development of garden land contained in national planning guidance.Paragraph 53 of the Framework notes that lpa's should consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens where specific circumstances exist, (e.g. where development would cause harm to local area). Guidance does not set automatic/general presumption against development of garden land.
Little legacy of redundant brownfield sites in Limited Infill Villages in order to provide opportunities for windfall housing development. There are, examples of waste, unused, under-used and damaged plots of 'greenfield' land within villages which could be released for housing without harm to character/appearance of village. Release of such sites would provide best efficient/effective use of land and make important contribution to supply of housing.

Object

Representation ID: 66602

Received: 25/06/2014

Respondent: Court (Warwick) Ltd

Agent: Stansgate Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

As drafted, policy is unecessarily restrictive and inflexible and as a result the Plan will not deliver level of windfalls required. Plan therefore ineffective/unsound.
No sound justification for artificially limiting scale of development to 2 dwgs as proposed by criterion a). Larger infill and other small scale schemes should be capable of consideration on site-by-site basis without harm to character of village/Green Belt.
Stoneleigh not solely linear with examples of development behind main road frontages. Requirement in cirterion c) therefore inappropriate for Stoneleigh. Development could take place on land which does not front public hgihway without harming character of village/Green Belt
Criterion c) redundant in that impact of proposed development is to be considered under other Plan policies