South Warwickshire Local Plan

Gwrthwynebu

Proposed Modifications January 2016

ID sylw: 68647

Derbyniwyd: 21/04/2016

Ymatebydd: ms karen hancock

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Heb nodi

Cadarn? Heb nodi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

1. The examination did not deal with many other aspects of the plan to which objections were submitted, and new plans does nothing to address these shortcomings, which leads to an unsound plan. Therefore, the original objections still stand and must not be omitted.
2. The impact of new development area on transport plans has not been satisfactorily explained.
3. Increase in pollution if houses are allocated near Strawberry field and also the land could be considered unsuitable due to flooding.
4. Developers prefer to build in Warwick rather than Coventry because they can charge a considerable amount more for the same property here.
5. If the UK opts out of the EU and projected figures for population growth will need to be adjusted, so we won't need the incredible amount of development proposed.

Testun llawn:

I object to the plan because of the following:-

1. The new local plan has only adjusted the numbers of houses proposed. The examination did not deal with many other aspects of the plan to which objections were submitted, and the new plan does nothing to address these shortcomings, which alone may be considered significant enough to make the plan unsound. Therefore, the original objections still stand and must not be omitted from any further examination of the plan.

2.The unaffordable transport proposals on which the plan was based were subject to serious objection as they were unworkable. The impact of the new development area (including those permitted under recent planning consents) on transport plans has not been satisfactorily explained or exposed to public scrutiny and, hence, must still be regarded as unsound.

3. The Inspector agreed that the Asps area should not be developed, which was the correct approach in view of the impact it would have on approach to the Grade 1 listed castle. Not only would any development be inappropriate in this setting, the impact on the already gridlocked roads around this area at peak times would have been unbearable. Pollution levels are already been exceeded, and need to reduced by limited development not increasing it. However, the Secretary of State overturned this, and has permitted building on the site - so much for localism!
However, as the anticipated demand for housing can be met within the new plan - this area must be looked at again, so that this area can be safeguarded. For this reason I object to the allocation for housing on the land to the west of Banbury Road and at the northern edge of Gallows Hill, known as Strawberry Field. The land could also be considered unsuitable as it is liable to flooding.

4. Personally I think the need for housing in this area has been exaggerated. Developers prefer to build in Warwick rather than Coventry because they can charge a considerable amount more for the same property here. Warwick should not be asked to cover any of Coventry's shortfall in provision just to help line the pockets of developers.

5. If the UK opts out of the EU and projected figures for population growth will need to be adjusted - as the vast EU immigration that has happened in the last few years will slow - so we won't need the incredible amount of development proposed. Why make decisions now - that will change our county town forever - when we are in such a period of flux.