BASE HEADER
Gwrthwynebu
Preferred Options
ID sylw: 48268
Derbyniwyd: 27/07/2012
Ymatebydd: JR Askew
No justification for development of Green Belt site as it meets the 5 purposes of Green Belt as defined int he NPPF.
Land has immense receation value to the local community and is heavily used.
No excetptional circumstances have been demonstrated at there are other areas of land outside of the green belt which are developable and served well by infrastructure and employment opportunities.
WDC's widely reported wish to "spread the misery equally" is not a valid planning reason.
Maximisation of developer's profits is not a valid exeptional circumstance to justifying altering greenbelt for development.
Proposed Development in Old Milverton and Blackdown Contained in Warwick District Council's Preferred Options fot the Local Plan
I strongly object to the proposed development of the Green Belt land in Blackdown and Old Milverton as outlined in the preferred option for the Local Plan.
There is no justification in law for the District Council to alter the Green Belt land in question and they will be acting in contravention of The National Planning Policy Framework as the Green Belt land actively fulfils all of its functions in this area. It has prevented the merging of Kenilworth and Leamington and the associated urban sprawl, it has helped preserve the special character and setting of Royal Leamington Spa. The land has immense recreational value to the local community and is heavily used by walkers, horse riders and cyclists in an area which has very little access to alternative rural landscape.
The District Council has not demonstrated that there are any "exceptional circumstances" as required by the NPPF, before consideration can be given to altering Green Belt land. There are other areas of land available which are not in Green Belt and which were included in WDC's previous plan, which are well served with infrastructure and employment opportunities. WDC's widely reported wish to "spread the misery equally" is not a valid planning reason to approve their option as it is a political and not a planning consideration.
The Council state that the available alternative sites are not as desirable to developers because the pre-existing housing would make the new houses less saleable and less profitable than houses built in the Green Belt. The maximisation of developer's profits is not a valid "very special circumstance" justifying the sacrifice of Green Belt land for unnecessary development.
I urge you to reconsider this poorly thought through, ill conceived, and unjustifiable plan as the preferred option.