Publication Draft

Object

Representation ID: 66128

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Hallam Land Management and William Davis

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The primary objective of the plan should be to provide for sustainable levels of growth in the district, in line with advice set out in the NPPF.

Para. 1.46 refers to a secondary objective, to provide a sustainable level of housing growth by identifying and maintaining a supply of land for housing to meet objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing. Whilst this is entirely appropriate, it is not considered that it has sufficient regard to the emphasis in national policy for the need to boost significantly the supply of housing, in order to achieve five years worth of housing. As a consequence the Plan is not sound as it is not consistent with national policy and does not enable the delivery of sustianable development in accordance with the policies in the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 66162

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Hallam Land Management and William Davis

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This strategic policy should encourage the enhancement of the ability to appreciate heritage assets where appropriate, in line with NPPF para.126, namely:

'Local planning authorities should set out in their Local Plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment ... In developing this strategy, local planning authorities should take into account...

- 'the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness and'

-'opportunities to draw on the contribution made by the historic environment to the character of a place'.

It is considered that the policy would be more effective if it did not distinguish between 'built' and 'cultural heriatge' but rather used the term 'cultural heritage'.

Object

Representation ID: 66163

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Hallam Land Management and William Davis

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Hallam Land Managment and William Davis Limited broadly support the overall strategy for the distribution of housing and employment across the District.

Paragraph (e) states that:
"Sites which have a detrimental impact on the significance of heritage assets will be avoided unless suitable mitigation can be put in place".

The wording of this paragraph is not considered consistent with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework. It implies a general principle of restraint.

Object

Representation ID: 66166

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Hallam Land Management and William Davis

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

William Davis and Hallam Land Management have a number of concerns about the various components of the supply and how the overall level of provision is to be met.

The allowance for windfall sites is expressed in the policy as being "over the plan period". It should be more accurately described as relating to the period beyond April 2013. Furthermore it is considered that the contribution from windfall sites has been overstated.

On the basis of the advice set out in paragraph 48 the NPPF and the subsequent "on-line" Planning Practice Guidance, it is accepted that, in principle, an allowance for windfall sites could be included within any assessment of the supply of housing land over the plan period.However such a significant reliance on windfall sites is contrary to that expectation and gives rise to a level of uncertainty as to the delivery of the housing requirement over the plan period. The issue is the scale of such an allowance. As proposed, it is not considered that this is justified and hence the Plan is not sound.

Object

Representation ID: 66167

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Hallam Land Management and William Davis

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Hallam Land Management and William Davis consider that the policy working to DS10 should be changed to meet the changes to Policy DS11, which they outline in separate submissions.

Object

Representation ID: 66172

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Hallam Land Management and William Davis

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

It is considered that the allocation at Thickthorn (HO6) should be deleted from the plan and the area remain as Green Belt for a number of reasons.

In the absence of:
* a clear demonstration of such exceptional circumstances as necessitate the need for the revision to the Green Belt boundaries;
* an assessment of the need for new housing in Kenilworth;
* replacement sites for the existing sports facilities at Thickthorn.
* an assessment of the transport and traffic impacts of the development of the site on the local highway network.
the plan is not justified and hence is unsound because it has not been shown that the strategy for developing Green Belt land is the most appropriate when considered against the
reasonable alternative of developing sites in sustainable locations outside the Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 66178

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Hallam Land Management and William Davis

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This representation relates to the omission from Policy DS11 of the site, on land south of Gallows Hill from the list of sites allocated in the policy for residential development.

Application W/13/1434 was prepared and submitted on the basis of the Council's clear indication in the RDS of 2013 that the site formed an integral and necessary component of the strategic development proposals south of Warwick, Leamington Spa and Whitnash.

The land to the south of Gallows Hill no longer forms a part of the proposals set out in the Publication Draft Plan, due to matters of heritage concerns.

Our clients conclude that subject to the heritage concerns being "resolved" there are no technical or other sustainable development reasons that would inhibit the allocation of this site in the Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 66182

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Hallam Land Management and William Davis

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

In a separate objection to Policy DS11 Allocated Housing Sites, we have commented on behalf of our clients, on the site at Thickthorn, Kenilworth. It is considered this site should be deleted from the plan and replaced with land south of Gallows Hill, Warwick. Accordingly, a modification is required to Policy DS15 to delete reference to Thickthorn at sub-paragraph (e) and replace this with land south of Gallows Hill.

Object

Representation ID: 66183

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Hallam Land Management and William Davis

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Policy DS20 is considered unsound as it is neither justified nor the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives, furthermore it has not been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Co-operate. It is therefore not legally compliant.

It is clear from this approach that if it is shown that significant housing needs arising outside of the Distirct should be met within its administrative area, the Council is relying upon a review of the Local Plan. This will further delay the provision of new homes which it is already apparent will be required. They should be planned for now rather than deferred.

Object

Representation ID: 66187

Received: 27/06/2014

Respondent: Hallam Land Management and William Davis

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

In general terms, many of the policies dealing with the Historic Environment are worded negatively and restrictively and so conflict with the NPPF, exceeding even the statutory provision.

It is particularly the case, in our client's view that Policy HE1 must be extensively revised to ensure compliance with the NPPF and its practical application more generally.

In its present form, Policy HE1 does not include the concept pf "proportionality" which is essential to delivery pf sustainable development which underpins several topic areas of the NPPF. Our clients therefore consider the policy to be unsound and recommend it is redrafted.