Proposed Modifications January 2016

Object

Representation ID: 69832

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

1. Revise DS15 in the light of our representations in Mod 10 by the omission of "including the former sewage works " in item a).
2. Reduce the area of land at Gallows Hill to that granted on appeal in item g) in the light of our representations in Mod 10
3. Why is the LPA not providing the overall masterplan across this part of the district for developers to take their part of the overall development to which they have to demonstrate that their proposal complies?

Object

Representation ID: 69835

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

2.66 This new paragraph is of concern. Leaving matters to landowners to work closely together to produce the most appropriate overall scheme for the site is unlikely to produce the result anticipated. Multi-headed leadership rarely works. The LPA should take the lead and co-ordinate the parts of the development to an overall masterplan agreed before the detail developer work commences.
2.68 Who judges that the strategic sites are being developed in a comprehensive manner? Left to the developers it will lead them to expect that their schemes will be nodded through, as costs come into consideration.

Object

Representation ID: 69839

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

DS20 should also make provision for the need to relate the plan to reduction as well as growth if the need for housing is reduced by forthcoming household projections. Growth relates to economic growth not physical growth that cannot be sustained.

Suggested amendments to para a) are included in the full text

Object

Representation ID: 69843

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Comment:
Suggested amendments to sub para b) outlined in original full text

Object

Representation ID: 69844

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Only the part of this site that the Secretary of State has granted planning permission of 450 dwellings should be included and not 630 contained in this plan as it has been shown that the additional 180dwellings are not required to meet Warwick District housing need and the housing required for Coventry can be met elsewhere. It is more important to retain the remainder of this site as rural and open countryside in relation to the Grade 1 listed Castle Park and the proximity to and context with Warwick Castle.
This applies to Allocating Additional Land and amending The Urban Area Boundary on pages 14 and 15 and also to appendix C page 39 Mod PM2a

Object

Representation ID: 69845

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

This area is outside the village envelope and should remain so as set out in Mod 10
Amendments H46A. H49 H46A map 2 and Appendix C Growth village envelopes.
This applies to Allocating Additional Land and Amending The Growth Village Envelope on page 15.

Support

Representation ID: 69881

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Why is HS2 mentioned as contributing to the area of growth. HS2 only passes through the area. Only refer to proposed transport networks to encompass these issues in the local plan policy.
The inclusion of this policy is welcomed together with the potential for it to expand in the future if necessary. It means that further land take south the towns to accommodate the new requirement from the HMA problem is no longer necessary since further land south of Coventry is.
It is important that the Duty to Cooperate obligations across the HMA are acknowledged.
It would be expected that as these developments are initiated by their projected unmet need that Coventry's planners will take the lead in producing a comprehensive development plan for all the sites being provided by the remainder of the Housing Market Area. The infrastructure works will need to be coordinated with matters within the city boundary as well as the adjacent sites.

The joint authorities should devise plans that when developers are preparing their parts of the plan, they have a clear idea of what they are expected to include within their planning application.

Object

Representation ID: 69882

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

New1.1 displays an unfortunate expansionist policy that appears to want to take over Coventry's problem in its entirety. The real reason is that Coventry does not want to lose all its green belt within the boundary and that should be transparently shown.
Suggested amended text is given in the original full text version.
New 1.4 is an extremely dangerous way to proceed as it is too insular an approach by Warwick District. To declare that developers and promoters are at liberty to provide their own detailed masterplans is a recipe for disaster.
New1.5 The proposals for Warwick University, which is jointly on land donated by the City Council and the District Council, is welcomed. It should be required to provide not only for its academic initiatives but also provide facilities for business's that are led by university research and for student accommodation, either on campus or in close proximity to it.

Object

Representation ID: 69883

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In the explanation of Safeguarded Land, it is not directly said that the safeguarded land will no longer be included in the green belt. It does say that it will be between the new green belt boundary and the urban area and that it is not allocated for development and is within the rural area of the district so that rural and open countryside policies will apply.
Is New 2.3 strong enough to resist applications for development before a Local plan review that proposes these areas for development?