Publication Draft Local Plan: Focused Consultation

Object

Representation ID: 67239

Received: 10/12/2014

Respondent: Baginton Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Coventry and Warwickshire Strategic Employment Land Study -

General.
We note that this report has been issued as "final" three times. This gives Councillors the impression that others are unduly influencing its content and conclusions.

Section 3.
This section invalidates the report in our view as the list referred to in Appendix A comprises organisations with vested interests in the development, rather than taking the considered views of Parish Councils, local residents and local enterprises.

Section 4.
This section is based on a number of assumptions which in our view are questionable and lead to inappropriate conclusions. In particular, the job forecast is wholly unreasonable as it grossly overestimates job creation compared with other documents and representations previously made.

Section 6.
This section is fundamentally flawed for many reasons, such as, but not limited to the following:-

A. The SELS claims that the Gateway sites satisfy strategic sites criteria despite the fact that the sites are all in the Green Belt,
B. The site by site analysis ignores the fact that planning policy such as Green Belt may influence the provision of employment sites, despite the fact that this was acknowledged in section 5 point 5.2.2

C. There is no rail link,
D. There is poor amenity provision,
E. It has proven negative environmental impact,
F. Access requires extensive highway improvements,
G. There are plans for improvements to railway network to the North of the city and it is the North of the City of Coventry and North Warwickshire where there is most socio-economic need. This is not even recognised in the report's conclusions

Section 7.

This section fails to recognise key strategic sites in the periphery of the CWLEP area such as Blythe Valley

Business Park and the development site at Gaydon. The report overstates claimed demand and understates supply.


Sustainability Appraisal

The assessment demonstrates that the vast majority of criteria for this site are negative impacts. This is not acceptable.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the new information is in the view of Councillors fundamentally flawed in a number of key areas, so should not be given any weight in argument for the Gateway. Indeed the errors and omissions and flawed conclusions in the report serve to further reinforce our view that the Gateway is inappropriate development of the Green Belt, with no very special circumstances. The Local Plan therefore remains fundamentally flawed in this respect and the Gateway development must be removed.