BASE HEADER

North of Milverton, Leamington Spa

Yn dangos sylwadau a ffurflenni 571 i 576 o 576

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 50640

Derbyniwyd: 27/07/2012

Ymatebydd: Dr Tim Robbins

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Objects to the preferred options plan set out as part of the consultation process. In particular objects to construction on greenbelt land north of Leamington, north of Northumberland Road and South of Old Milverton. This is not in accordance with national policy in the NPPF which states greenbelt should only be built on in exceptional circumstances. The Council has presented no evidence of exceptional circumstances. Together with the proposed development South of Kenilworth this would increase the risk of sprawl between the two towns risking coalescence destroying the local area and community.

The need for housing does not present the exceptional circumstances to build in the greenbelt as demonstrated by the recent planning inspectorate decision in Cheltenham. The suggestion that 80% of the District land is in the greenbelt is misleading, a far smaller % protects the urban rural fringe therefore it is unacceptable to build 44% of the required housing on greenbelt. There are other suitable areas to build and the argument of 'spreading the pain'to justify building in the greenbelt is not a planning reason or exceptional circumstance. This area of greenbelt fulfils the five purposes of the greenbelt, is therefore of great importance and building on it would be contrary to the NPPF. There is no distinct boundary to the greenbelt in this area and therefore would inevitably lead to further development in the future.
Allowing a larger amount of development in the South of the district would increase the supply reducing the cost of housing and ensuring the provision of affordable housing, building in the north would fail to do this. The argument that the market could not support that level of housing in the South suggests there is no demand and clearly no need to build anymore housing in the District. Focusing development in the South would allow the Council to benefit from economies of scale allowing financial savings to be made on infrastructure saving tax payers money.

This area of greenbelt provides important leisure and recreational opportunities including popular footpaths used for walking, cycling and horse riding with important health benefits. It would be difficult to recreate this leisure resource which benefits from free access, is suitable for all age groups and is used widely from people across Leamington . Few people would use a footpath through a housing estate and a created park area could become a focus for crime. Destroying this amenity could increase the risk of heart disease, diabetes and stroke within the population increasing the burden on health services, building on other sites would avoid this loss. The fields closest to Leamington are of the greatest value therefore even a small encroachment into the greenbelt would be unacceptable and harmful.

The area between Kenilworth and Leamington is already subject to air quality management measures and the proposed development would reduce the green lung between the towns to less than 1.5 miles. It is not sustainable to future generations to encourage harmful levels of pollution. Areas to the South do not suffer from the risk of coalescence or have air quality issues.

This area of greenbelt includes a wide diversity of wildlife included protected species, the biodiversity studies needed would be likely to result in significant delay compromising the Councils timescale for bringing the site forward.


Locating housing in the north fails to take into account past employment trends and the risk that not enough employment will be available in the area. The plan does not indicate the type or location of employment proposed on the site and fails to acknowledge the benefits for employers of locating in the South or evidence of companies wishing to locate in this area. It is likely that the only employment created would be that to serve the needs of those living in the area such as out of town shopping which would be disastrous for the economy of Leamington. Housing in this area would increase commuting to the south and M40 contributing to air pollution. The suggestion that jobs would be provided on the Coventry gateway site is unacceptable as this would also involve the development of greenbelt land and housing should not be provided in Leamington for jobs that are essentially in Coventry. This would also risk turning Leamington into a commuter town and appropriate infrastructure is not in place. Historically planning in Leamington has focused development to the South to ensure housing did not serve the commuting needs of Coventry.

The consultation process should be an opportunity to establish local views, the Council should not be seeking further evidence to contest views put forward in these responses.

Current infrastructure is unable to meet the demands of further housing in this area, clearly demonstrated by the £28 million northern Relief Road which would be required. This road would destroy the character of Old Milverton which has been preserved for many generations. It is a waste of money which could be used for other infrastructure such as schools if an alternative site was chosen. The cost of providing expensive infrastructure would be passed on via the purchase cost making the housing expensive and reducing opportunities to provide affordable housing. No confidence in Councils ability to deliver infrastructure appropriately from previous examples and there is no evidence in the local plan how it would be implemented. Dualling the A452 would do little as peak time delays arise from commuters wishing to access the town centres. Milverton should be protected under policy RR1 of the RSS.

There is overprovision of housing in the Preferred Options as the Council is relying on projections from a past period of exceptional growth and even if this level was accepted it could be accomodated without greenbelt sites. The result of the consultation should therefore be removal of these sites.

The Council's evidence in the SHLAA places importance on the RSS discounting many rural areas because they conflict with policy RR1. Policy QE14 requires that development plan policies ensure adequate protection is given to key footpaths and open space features however the SHLAA doesnt assess sites against it despite that policies in the RSS should be given equal weight. The suggestion of ignoring QE14 and building on the greenbelt yet leaving the footpath is logical. Weight should also be given to protecting the character and landscape of Old Milverton through policy QE6. The application of policy RR1 is inconsistent, Old Milverton should also be protected for the same reasons applied to development sites neighbouring Radford Semele. It is inconsistent to label the north Milverton site as an urban extension rather than a rural site in itself (i.e. R46)protected by RR1.
A previous plan identified sufficient land outside the greenbelt for development demonstrating that there cannot be exceptional circumstances to justify construction on greenbelt land when nothing has changed.Infrstructure problems as suggested by the Council is not sufficient to justify building in the North when investment could address the problems. More investigation has been undertaken to investigate infrastructure issues in the South than the north. A full examination of current and future congestion and related infrastructure needs should be undertaken before sites are chosen as no investigation has been carried out on the sites the Council does not wish to build on. That the financial gain to developers will be less by concentrating development in the South does not represent very special circumstances.
A significant proportion of the greenbelt allocation could be found around Radford Semele. The presence of gas mains does not preclude development, the required exclusion zones could form open space associated with development.Reassessment of certain sites in this area, particularly in terms of the risk of flooding, is neccessary to establish capacity. Any risk of coalescence between the village and Leamington is far less significant than the risk of coalescence in the North by building in the greenbelt.

The proportion of housing allocated to Category 1 villages is low relative to the total requirement, it is likely these villages could accomodate more once sites are identified preferable to the greenbelt.

Development on Grove Farm would remove the need to build on the greenbelt and and not result in coalescence as suggested but leave a 1km gap between built up areas.Objections that the land would need employment and infrastructure are no different to problems identified with greenbelt land. Retaining green wedges whilst building in the greenbelt goes against government advice which indicates that greenbelt is of higher status.
Difficult to understand why W07 and W03 cannot be brought forward but land in the greenbelt could be. A new garden village should be created in non greenbelt land in the South of the district.
It is the Councils responsibility to listen to the arguments which are put forward against development in North Leamington which are backed by local, regional and national planning policy. Opposition to development in the south is based on concerns over lack of infrastructure, which can be addressed through development and overdevelopment which is not backed up by sound planning arguments.

The value of the greenbelt to the nation was highlighted through opposition to the Draft NPPF which led to the protection now provided for it in the NPPF. The Preferred Option fails to take account of this.

Testun llawn:

I am writing to express by serious and deep-felt objections to the preferred options plan as part of...
[dangos mwy]

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 50719

Derbyniwyd: 02/08/2012

Ymatebydd: Mr Patrick Swann

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Sites 4 and 5 - there is no credible argument put forward in the plan as to why the main strategic constrain (the green belt policy) should be forfeited, by the proposed building of 2000 houses and possible employment facilities in the Green Belt on sites 3 and 4 when there is more suitable (non-green belt options that can fulfil that requirement. The current main employment opportunities/ areas for the area lie south of Warwick and Leamington and are well related to the strategic motorway network. The two suggested allocation 4 and 5 would result in unnecessary cross town commuting. These allocations should therefore be deleted, and the Green Belt protected accordingly.

Testun llawn:

See Attached.

Cefnogi

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 50746

Derbyniwyd: 03/08/2012

Ymatebydd: Taylor Wimpey

Asiant : Barton Willmore

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

The inclusion of North Milverton is supported although it is considered that the site is capable of accomodating 1000 houses and could come forward as part of wider development with the Blackdown site or as a standalone site.

Testun llawn:

See attached

Atodiadau:

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 50762

Derbyniwyd: 30/07/2012

Ymatebydd: Jennifer Lim

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

This land has great recreational value to the local community.

This land fulfils the 5 purposes of Greenbelt as defined in NPPF.

There are other sites which can be developed that are not in the Green Belt. As such there are no exceptional circumstance to alter the Green Belt boundaries in old milverton and blackdown and allow development on this land.

Testun llawn:

See Attached Letter

Atodiadau:

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 50764

Derbyniwyd: 01/08/2012

Ymatebydd: Mr James Emmerson

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

This land has great recreational value to the local community.

This land fulfils the 5 purposes of Greenbelt as defined in NPPF.

There are other sites which can be developed that are not in the Green Belt. As such there are no exceptional circumstance to alter the Green Belt boundaries in old milverton and blackdown and allow development on this land.

Testun llawn:

See Attached Letter.

Atodiadau:

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 50770

Derbyniwyd: 27/07/2012

Ymatebydd: Miss Carol Duckfield

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Going by the contents of the summary I do not see any exceptional circumstance to warrant the destruction of the green belt, which once gone cannot be replaced and is conytrary to the National Planning Policy Framework. To the north of Leamington these is limited local amenities. And I know from my daily walks with my dog the vast range of wild life that exist in the proposed Milverton area from bats, newt to a vast array of birdsong which lifts my heart every time I hear it regardless of the weather. I also know the vast number of dog walkers, runners, cyclists and ramblers from around the district that make use of and enjoy these limited facilities
Also by the fact that you have identified non Green Belt land that could be used, and that developers probably already have options on, and that you have discounted then I am certain that owners of this land in conjunction with developers will gain planning permission on appeal resulting in a vast over provision of land to the detriment of the town and its residents

Testun llawn:

I am writing in response to the above publication issued by the council to object to what seems to b...
[dangos mwy]