Loes Farm (North of Woodloes)

Yn dangos sylwadau a ffurflenni 151 i 180 o 214

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 49609

Derbyniwyd: 27/07/2012

Ymatebydd: Mr & Mrs Peter & Wendy Bates

Nifer y bobl: 2

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Plans would lead to urban sprawl with Leek Wootton and ruin the are as a recreation site for walking. The location will lose its distinctiveness if planning goes ahead.

Atodiadau:

6846-R.pdf (1.07 MB)

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 49612

Derbyniwyd: 27/07/2012

Ymatebydd: Mrs Jane Jackson

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Development is inappropriate. It will harm wildlife and hedges.
There will be environmental damage to site. Diminshed demarkation between towns and loss of open space. Inbalance between home and jobs created.
Inadequate infrastructure and disruption caused by development.
Hospitals do not have capacity to cope. Right to roam will be lost. Currently vacant accommodation exists locally. Alternative sites are available which would be better to use.

Atodiadau:

6845-R.pdf (977.94 KB)

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 49639

Derbyniwyd: 07/11/2012

Ymatebydd: Mrs Gaenor Clarke

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Other sites including incomplete Chase Meadow, offer potential development.
Loss of amenity land.
Spoil approach to Warwick.
Disappointment for visitors.
Loss of views and property value
Where will jobs come from when businesses are closing? People would have to commute which is not sustainable.
Increase congestion and cost of infrastructure required.
Unacceptable traffic noise.
Noise during construction.
Need for conservation of wlidlife.
Water shortage.
Brownfield sites preferable in towns where there is infrastructure and countryside would not be destroyed.
Redeveloping old sites can turn them into desirable places to live and bring new people into community in convenient location, giving new lease of life to area.
Green belt easier for developers to make profit.

Atodiadau:

7045-R.pdf (3.38 MB)

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 49651

Derbyniwyd: 07/11/2012

Ymatebydd: mr michael george

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

How has figure been calculated? If information is incorrect how much has evidence has been based on this?
Failure to comply with NPPF
Disregard of Hedgerow Regulations 1997
Disregard of Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
Land immediately to south is designated Registerd Park and Garden and land intimately linked with historic estates. Character would be destroyed.
Stated aim not to close the gap between north of Warwick and Leek Wootton.
Schools and services have not been approached about plans and resources are already stretched. Reduction in emergency services.
CPRE very concerned.
Poor infrastructure, especially roads.
Widening of farm track fails to take into consideration the houses back onto the road and widening would require hedgerow removal - will not sell land. Also part of millennium way.
Increased traffic including to Warwick Parkway. Major safety issue.
Local primary schools full and access to secondary schools exacerbates transport problem.
Area of considerable importance to wildlife and habitats. Full EIA required.
Farm not profitable is irrelevant. Fine ridge and furrow features, fertile river valley soils needed for sustainable future.
Flood catchments need to be identified.
Not in compliance with NPPF.
If whole farm sold to developer, nothing will be able to stop entire area being developed.

Atodiadau:

5987-R.pdf (2.61 MB)

Cefnogi

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 49705

Derbyniwyd: 27/07/2012

Ymatebydd: Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

This would seem to be a reasonable site to utilise if numbers demand it.

Testun llawn:

PO1 Preferred Option: Level of growth
I consider that the proposed level of housing growth of 555 homes per year is not supported by all the evidence available. The mathematics of the calculations are not shown so they cannot be checked easily.
The baseline population on which the future need is apparently calculated is the ONS estimate of 138,670. Since those calculations the 2011 census has measured it at 136,000.
The initial stage of consultation gave a range of growth possibilities and the clear majority of respondents opted for the lower growth levels which would more reasonably reflect the inevitable organic growth in our population due to increased longevity, better health and changes in birth rates along with some inevitable inward migration.
Residents made a clear choice to accept lower infrastructure gains in return for limiting growth and specifically avoiding more growth in excess of local need.
Approximately 250 homes per year would appear to be more than adequate to meet these need if more adventurous use of brownfield urban sites was made..

PO2 Preferred Option: Community Infrastructure Levy
The current market conditions demonstrate that because developers are not confident in the ability of customers to buy, and sites that already have planning approvals are not proceeding.
CIL should be used on a local benefit to relieve effects of or immediately related to development proposal areas.

PO3 Preferred Option: Broad location of Growth
I supports the dispersal of additional housing that cannot be located on urban brownfield sites so there is a small effect on a number of places, rather than a large effect on a few. In general, this will reduce travel and demand for traffic improvements, use existing educational, health and other community facilities where there is available capacity to do so.
The NPPF para 54 requires that in rural areas, local authorities should be responsive to local circumstances, planning housing development to reflect local needs. In para 55, to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.

PO4 Preferred Option: Distribution of sites for housing
Location 1 Sites within existing towns. This is the best option. If it were possible, all the housing required should be in existing towns and dispersed therein, to make the least demand on support infrastructure and reducing traffic movements.
Location 2 Myton Garden Suburb. No objection.
Location 3 South of Gallows Hill/West of Europa Way. This development must not take place. It is a criminal intrusion into the rural southern setting of both Warwick and Leamington with important implications for the setting of Warwick Castle and its parkland. It will create a natural infill area for later development until eventually all the area south of Warwick and Leamington id completely filled.
The additional traffic from the proposed 1600 homes plus employment on a road system that is already struggling will impose even greater stacking effects back through the village of Barford which already suffers enormous amounts of rat-running from commuters trying to avoid the daily J15/Banbury Spur commuter
The numbers show that it is not needed and the council needs to bold enough to decide to continue the Green Wedge through to Castle Park.
Location 4 Milverton Gardens. 810houses + community +employment + open space.
and
Location 5 Blackdown. 1170 houses+ employment +open space + community.
These two sites may well be cases where the Greenbelt policy could be relaxed with limited overall damage whilst providing essential housing land. There would be limited damage to the settlement separation intentions of the Greenbelt policy.

Location 6 Whitnash East/ South of Sydenham. 650 houses + open space and community facilities
No specific comment but is this really required?
Location 7 Thickthorn, Kenilworth 770 houses + employment +open space + community
Use of this as part of the policy for dispersal of the housing required is supported.
It is, better to use this site than land of rural, landscape and environmental value elsewhere in the district. It is the only contribution to the preferred option plan located in or near Kenilworth.
Location 8 Red House Farm, Lillington 200 houses + open space.
This would seem to be a reasonable site to utilise if numbers demand it.
Location 9 Loes Farm, Warwick 180 houses + open space
This would seem to be a reasonable site to utilise if numbers demand it.
Location 10 Warwick Gates Employment land 200 houses + open space.
No objection.
Location 11 Woodside Farm, Tachbrook Road 250 houses + open space
There seem to be merits in using this site as it extends previously developed land towards a natural boundary (Harbury Lane) and is hence self-limiting.

Location 12 Fieldgate Lane/Golf Lane, Whitnash 90 houses + open space
No objection.
Locations 13 &14 Category 1 & 2 villages Category 1, 5 villages at 100 and category 2, 7 villages at between 30 to 80 in each plus 8 category 3 villages within the existing village envelopes.
These are very significant increases for many of these villages! Do the category One villages really NEED to take 500 in total or 100 each. In Barford's case this will be an 18% increase in the number of dwellings, and that on top of a recent development of approximately 70 homes. I would suggest that the total Cat One numbers should be significantly reduced and that numbers should then be spread pro-rata over all the Cat one villages according to current house numbers of population number to give a more equitable spread and certainly to keep the increases at or below the district wide increase.
Considerable attention should be paid to the Sustainability Assessments included in the plan where it should be noted that Barford, a Category one village based on its facilities scores the THIRD WORST Sustainability score of all the villages assessed (Cat one, two and three) with only Rowington and Norton Lindsey scoring lower.

Furthermore despite having a very successful school there is considerable doubt about how such numbers could be accommodated and the amount of harm that would be inflicted on currently resident families and pupils of such increases.

PO5 Preferred Option: Affordable housing
I have considerable concerns that the 40% requirement is considerably in excess of the real need for "social housing" and as such will drive up the costs of market homes to such a degree that all homes will become significantly less affordable. It is perhaps appropriate to consider what is trying to be achieved and to review the way in which Affordable Housing need is actually measured - specifically it seems that those in need are counted before their need is actually validated whereafter the real need is actually considerably less and they are re-routed to more conventional housing sources.
PO6 Preferred Option: Mixed communities and a wide choice of homes
Regarding retirement housing of various sorts must be provided as part of a whole-life

PO7 Preferred Option: gypsies and travellers.
The Gypsies and travellers remain and always will be a problem. Most tax-payers are at a loss to understand why they must be treated differently to everyone else when they could acquire land and pursue the planning process just like everyone else.
The proposal to "provide sites" will bring out the worst elements of the NIMBY culture and blight certain areas.
It is my opinion that the problem needs solving by primary legislation not the current soft PC approach. This is a job for central government, no doubt through "Europe".

PO8 Preferred Option: Economy
Employment need only be provided/attracted to match our population. The previous stage of the consultation gave a clear indication that the majority were preferring to accept lower growth rates of housing, employment and infrastructure. That choice must be selected and a focus on consolidation rather than growth should be the watchword. We are a low unemployment area and any extra employment provision will bring with it a proportionate housing demand and inevitably more houses, which is not required.
The Gateway project may still materialise and this will make extra demands as some of the jobs will no doubt be attractive to our residents in addition to bringing in new workers. Provision should be made for housing local to that site and not for such workers to be subsumed into the wider WDC area.

PO9 Preferred options: Retailing and Town Centres
The support retailing and town centres is welcomed and should be vigorously pursued by both planning policy and fiscal incentives. There must be adequate town centre parking provision to support town centre businesses.

PO14 Preferred options: Transport

Access to services and facilities.
Clearly, it is essential to provide sufficient transport infrastructure to give access to services and facilities. The amount of work required is dependent on the level of growth selected. If the low growth scenario is chosen in preference to the current preferred option, then the infrastructure improvements will be much less and probably not much more than is currently necessary to resolve existing problems. This would be less costly and less inconvenient to the public than major infrastructure improvements.

Sustainable forms of transport.
The best way is to keep as much new housing provision as possible in existing urban locations because people are then more likely to walk, bus, bike to work, shops, school etc.

PO15 Preferred options: Green Infrastructure

The policies set out in PO15 are supported

PO16 Preferred options: Green Belt

The NPPF states that once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. I believe that it may be a proper time to review the Green belt to ensure that it is appropriate to the current situation and not merely being carried forward, just because it has always been so. Some relaxation within villages and on the edges of the major settlements would make massive contributions to the housing need whilst doing little harm to the concept of ensuring separation between settlements.

Removing Green Belt status from rural villages would allow currently unavailable infil land to make a significant contribution to housing numbers whilst improving the sustainability of those villages. Barford, not in the Green belt has had considerable infil in the past and as such is relatively sustainable whilst actually scoring poorly on the WDC conventional Sustainability Assessment scoring system.

PO17 Preferred options: Culture & Tourism

The preferred option of medium growth seems to be totally oblivious of the value of the approach road from the south to the Castle. It proposes to materially downgrade the approach past Castle Park by building housing along the length of the road from Greys Mallory to Warwick, a distance of about 2.5 km. The views across the rolling countryside to the east of the approach road are an essential part of the character of the district and county about which books have been written.

The low growth option makes that loss unnecessary.

PO18 Preferred options: Flooding & Water

Flooding: Development should take place where flooding is unlikely to occur. The low growth option would make it easier to select sites for development that do not carry this risk.

Atodiadau:

New Local Plan consultation Murphy.docx (21.29 KB)

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 49731

Derbyniwyd: 27/07/2012

Ymatebydd: Mrs Gillian Goode

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Traffic volumes are already high on the Woodloes Estate and traffic speeds on Primrose Hill are dangerous. These proposals would make the traffic situation worse.

The proposals take up green areas where local people can walk. The Estae has already been impacted by by new development and the relocation of the Special school - this has taken up more open space and ctreated further trafiic problems and noise.

Housing - including social housing - is needed but this should be located more toward Leek Wootton and Kenilworth.

We need to ensure Woodloes is a nice place to bring up families.

Atodiadau:

6931-R.pdf (2.71 MB)

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 49825

Derbyniwyd: 30/07/2012

Ymatebydd: Mr David Evans

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Substantial areas of non-green belt land has not been utilised/ allocated so it is argued that this makes the requirement to utilise Green Belt land unecessary(there are therefore no 'exceptional circumstances' as required by the NPPF/ Government advice).
Should Loes Farm be developed it would cross an exisitng boundary (Woodloes Lane) and encroach into the open countryside in an obtrusive manner setting a precedent for further future incursions to the A46. It is considered that this development would commence the piecemeal degrodation of Warwicks attractive historic setting / environment.

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 49840

Derbyniwyd: 30/07/2012

Ymatebydd: Mrs Janet Evans

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 50017

Derbyniwyd: 26/07/2012

Ymatebydd: Mr Barry Lovekin

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Object to the proposed development at Loes Farm. The access will cause safety problems and will redsult in the development of valued and protected green belt land.

Atodiadau:

6972-R.pdf (1.82 MB)

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 50022

Derbyniwyd: 26/07/2012

Ymatebydd: Mrs Claire Houghton

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Oppose to development at Loes Farm as it is green belt/ There are alternative brownfield sites that could be used instead (eg Hobsons Choice, Ridgeway School).

Green belt land should be kept for future generations. Loes Farm has important ecological value as identified by the 2008 HBA (newts, yellow ants, bats, moths, birds and butterflies). It will also result in loss of ancient tress (including some TPOs), high value landscape (including ridge and furrow meadow) and the only approach to Warwick that is rural in nature.

The development would increase pressure on the local road network

Atodiadau:

6966-R.pdf (2.33 MB)

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 50033

Derbyniwyd: 26/07/2012

Ymatebydd: Mr John Houghton

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Oppose to development at Loes Farm as it is green belt.
Green belt land should be kept for future generations. Loes Farm has important ecological value as identified by the 2008 HBA which suggested it was an unfavourable site for development. It will also result in loss of ancient tress (including some TPOs), high value landscape (including ridge and furrow meadow) and the only approach to Warwick that is rural in nature.

There are alternative brownfield sites that could be used instead (eg Hobsons Choice, Ridgeway School).

The development would increase pressure on the local road network.

Also concerned about flooding in the SE corner of the site

Atodiadau:

6965-R.pdf (1.75 MB)

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 50044

Derbyniwyd: 23/07/2012

Ymatebydd: Ms Lynne Pinfold

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

The impacts of the propoosed development on traffic in Warwick have not been fully considered. Additional residents will make parking harder.
As a result of fatalities, traffic lights have already been installed on Primrose Hill. These proposals would require more lights for safe crossing.

The public meeting at Woodloes School should have focused more on residents concerns and more should have been done to notify residents of the proposals.

Atodiadau:

6957-R.pdf (1.54 MB)

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 50048

Derbyniwyd: 27/07/2012

Ymatebydd: Ms Elicia Smith

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Object to building houses at Loes Farm. This area is rich in wildlife (Yellow Ants; Cookoos, Bats, Badgers, Buzzards. It is also a a good area for recreation (walking). Building on this area will destroy the trees and with them bird life.

The proposal will also result in noiseand there is also concern that affordable housing will affect the balance of the community in the area.

Atodiadau:

6949-R.pdf (1.75 MB)

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 50052

Derbyniwyd: 27/07/2012

Ymatebydd: Mr David Bull

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Object to development at Loes Farm because:
-it is green belt and its development would not be consistent with the NPPF.
-It has an historic ridge and furrow field pattern and historic lanes and hedgerows
-it is part of the Millenium Way
-Access off Primrose Hill will increase traffic and put safety at risk
-it will destoy the hedgerow
-it will put extra pressure on infrastructure
-it will be very visible and will destroy the rural feel of the area
-2008 Habitat Assessment identified a variety of wildlife (yellow ants, pond, mature trees, bats, crested newts etc)
-it could affect flooding in the area

Atodiadau:

6947-R.pdf (2.26 MB)

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 50053

Derbyniwyd: 27/07/2012

Ymatebydd: Mrs Katy Bull

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Atodiadau:

6948-R.pdf (1.66 MB)

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 50054

Derbyniwyd: 27/07/2012

Ymatebydd: Mrs Tracey Smith

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Objects to the loss of this site from the Green Belt as it will have a negative impact on the habitat and biodiversity interests at this location. An increase in traffic will also put further pressure on the local highway network (in particular Primrose Hill) and there are fears for the safety of children in the area as a consequence.
The 2008 habitat survey deemed the site as 'unsuitable for development' so the question is asked 'what has changed since then'. The site should not be developed as it also is the home of a historic ridge and furrow landscape.

Atodiadau:

5441-R.pdf (4.07 MB)

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 50055

Derbyniwyd: 27/07/2012

Ymatebydd: Mrs Iris Letman

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Object to development at Loes Farm for the following reasons
-impact on ecology (plants and animals) and hedgerows which connect with hibitats further in to the fields and create corridors.
-it is highly valued for recreation (walking)
-it is a quiet peaceful place that would be ruined by development

Atodiadau:

6945-R.pdf (1.72 MB)

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 50057

Derbyniwyd: 27/07/2012

Ymatebydd: Mr Peter Letman

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Object to development at Loes Farm for the following reasons
-the hedgerow regulations make it an offence to grup up hedges more the 30 years old.
-hedgerows provide for wildlife and connect with habitats further in to the fields and create corridors to the wetland on the opposite side of the A46.
-it is highly valued for recreation (walking)
-the additional houses will increase traffic on local roads which are already congested
-it is a quiet peaceful place that would be ruined by development

Atodiadau:

6944-R.pdf (1.70 MB)

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 50058

Derbyniwyd: 27/07/2012

Ymatebydd: Ms Nicole Biesok

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Albeit a relatively modest development in terms of the entire Local Plan this development will have a huge negative impact on the immediate surroundings. There are concerns about the potential loss of mature trees and the impact on habitat / biodiversity interests and the land here should therefore be afforded appropriate protection.
This location should not be developed and brownfield alternatives should be utilised (including the former Ridgeway school nearby).

Atodiadau:

3732-R.pdf (2.24 MB)

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 50059

Derbyniwyd: 27/07/2012

Ymatebydd: Ms Helen Tomlinson

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Object to development at Loes Farm for the following reasons:
-Proposals are inconsistent with the NPPF
-it will lead to irreversible destruction of green belt
-it will result in loss of valuable habitat (2008 HBA) and wildlife (butterfliesm noths, bats
-hedgerows, ancient trees and birdlife will be destroyed
-it is a highly valued historic landscape with ridge and furrow fields
-the proposals breach the 1981 Wildlifeand Countryside and 1997 Hedgerows Act.
-There are alternatives available on brownfield and non-green belt land
-The area is known for flooding (SE corner)
-It will impact on the rural approach to Warwick and will be highly visible
-it will have an adverse impact on the Historic Garden at Guys Cliffe
-It will lead to increased traffic congsetion on roads that already cannot cope.
-the additional traffic will undermine road safety (crossing Primrose Hill)
-it will put pressure on existing infrastrucre within the Woodloes estate (schools, hosiptal etc).
-new housing should be located close to employment areas to reduce the need to travel and reduce carbon emissions. Loes Farm is not close to major employment centres.
-the area is used for recreation (walking, cycling etc). Its loss would undermine the push for healthier lifestyles

Atodiadau:

6941-R.pdf (1.94 MB)

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 50061

Derbyniwyd: 27/07/2012

Ymatebydd: Mrs Jaime George

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Object to development at Loes Farm for the following reasons:
-the area is greenbelt and to develop on it would be contrary to the NPPF
-The area support rish ecology including protected species - the 2008 Habitat audit deemed this site unsuitable for development
-access from Primrose Hill will increase traffic and will cause health and safety issues
-it has an ancient ridge and furrow field pattern
-it will damage the rural character of the area
(NB: Communication from the Council about these proposals has been poor)

Atodiadau:

6936-R.pdf (2.19 MB)

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 50064

Derbyniwyd: 27/07/2012

Ymatebydd: Mrs Ann Lunn

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Object to proposals for Loes Farm:
-exceptional circumstances for development in the green belt have not been justified.
-Loes Farm has a special ecological significance
-the 2008 Habitat Survey deemed this area to be unsuitable for development
-development would lead to increased traffic congestion and would lead to road safety problems.

Atodiadau:

6933-R.pdf (2.15 MB)

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 50066

Derbyniwyd: 27/07/2012

Ymatebydd: Mr Harold Lunn

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Object to proposals for Loes Farm:
-exceptional circumstances for development in the green belt have not been justified and alternatives on brownfield and outside the green belt are available.
-development would lead to increased traffic congestion and would lead to road safety problems.

Atodiadau:

6932-R.pdf (2.13 MB)

Gwrthwynebu

Preferred Options

ID sylw: 50072

Derbyniwyd: 21/07/2012

Ymatebydd: Mrs Margaret Hall

Crynodeb o'r Gynrychiolaeth:

Loes Farm is Green Belt Land.
It includes ancient trees and hedgerows which are rich in wildlife
Extra traffic will increase congestion and result in safety concerns.
Woodloes is attractive because of its green areas. This will be destroyed by the island - don't use Primorose Hill

Atodiadau:

6927-R.pdf (1.15 MB)