Proposed Modifications January 2016

Object

Representation ID: 69711

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DS11 is unsound as it excludes land south of the primary school, Bishop's Tachbrook (SHLAA R179). Site is available now. It is outside the green belt and without constraints, so deliverable. It is continguous with allocated site H23 which is now a commitment with planning permission and houses being developed.
It is the nearest developable site to the school and village facilities, minimising the need to travel. The reason for non allocation is the impact of noise from the M40 which cannot be mitigated against due to the location and topography, but there is no evidence that part of the site couldn't be developed with the use of conditions as with site H23.
The potential for the site taking mitigation into account is 75 dwellings using a small proportion of the site. LP para 2.38 states that non Green Belt land will be favoured over Green Belt where possible. Rejecting this site but allowing Green Belt sites does not enable the delivery of sustainable development.

Object

Representation ID: 69718

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DS11 is unsound as it proposes to allocate DSNEW3 Leek Wootton Police HQ for 115 dwellings. The Setting of Heritage Assets at Woodcote House, Leek Wootton (HE06) concludes that development would cause less than substantial harm to the designated heritage assets; the Listed Building, Conservation Area and locally listed park and garden. This was based on previous smaller allocations and this proposal has not been assessed. The proposed allocation is contrary to the NPPF, to conserve, sustain and enhance the significance to heritage assets.
HE06 justifies the harm caused by previous proposed allocations by reference to the public benefits from the delivery of new village housing. Those benefits could be achieved on other sites around the village. There is therefore no justification for the harm caused to the designated heritage assets in this context. The Plan should allocate land with the least environmental or amenity value. The proposed amendment to increase the quantum of development and allow greater flexibility as to where development can take place at the former police HQ is contrary to the NPPF and the achievement of sustainable development.