Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66357

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr & Mrs Peter & Linda Bromley

Nifer y bobl: 2

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

The location of so much development in the south of the District will encourage car use. Jobs and schools to support this development do not exist.
The proposals are not consistent with the NPPF and appear to be financially motivated.
The loss of so much greenfield land is unsustainable. The greenfield areas to the south of the District play an important part in separating communities and are limited in extent. The Local could lead to communities being joined together by development. It is not necessary to develop greenfield sites. The proposals will lead to a large funding gap in infrastructure provision, particularly in mitigating traffic movements across the towns. Additional traffic signals have already been required for new developments. The allocations are to the south of the towns, will encourage more movements across the towns including crossing the river, canal and railway. The proposals do not provide for a bypass or other means to avoid the town centre. This additional traffic will make pollution worse and increase health risks.
The result of allowing houses to be built on every single green space between housing is that sites cannot be integrated and cannot deliver the infrastructure required.
The proposals will damage important heritage assets in Whitnash by building on every remaining greenfield space.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66369

Derbyniwyd: 25/06/2014

Ymatebydd: The Leamington Society

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Heb nodi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

This policy is based on a housing target that is not justified. Much of the allocation is on land to the south of Warwick and Leamington. The implications for transport and other infrastructure are severe, damaging and expensive. If fewer houses were planned for the a large proportion of the need could be provided for on brownfield sites as required by the NPPF.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66387

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Warwick Town Council

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Ydi

The plan ignores:

The importance of of retaining greenfield sites free from development as recommended by the residents of Bishops Tachbrook, Warwicka nd Whitnash. Dismissed, even though such allocations are unnecessary.

The impact of air quality and the health of residents as development will generate greater number of of vehicles, with more congestiona dn even more dangerous levels of air pollution in Warwick.

The damage to the environment and heritage assets of Warwick and fails to promote Warwick as an attractive place to live in, work or
visit. All of which would have a serious impact on the visitor economy.

The transport strategy upon which the plan is based is flawed.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66392

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Cllr Elizabeth Higgins

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Ydi

The enormous impact of so many houses, to the south of Warwick, around Bishops Tachbrook, and Whitnash, as well as SDC's plans to build maybe as many as 3,800 houses in Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath, just to the south of Warwick; is really worrying many Warwick residents.

Loss of Greenfield and agricultural land is unsustainable.

Greenfield allocations, unnecessary, densities, too low.

Transport strategy ineffective and unsustainable.
Air Quality, already at danger levels.

Failed to give enough emphasis to protecting our assets from the onslaught of modern traffic.

The effect of so many houses, to the south of Warwick, BT and Whitnash, Gaydon/L/H and their vehicles will increase traffic in our three town centres to an unacceptable level. These 8000 houses, if built, will bring cars with families seeking schools, doctors, libraries, and medical/dental services.
The independent assessment of STS(4) by WCC has now been formalised and it castigates WCC with its "mitigation" plans which actually means accommodating more vehicular traffic along our narrow streets to the detriment of the built environment and the health of people who live, work or visit our towns.

Save Warwick and Warwick Deserves Better have produced magnificent representation to you on heritage and the effect of traffic, both poor air quality and the effect of vibration on historic buildings.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66405

Derbyniwyd: 30/06/2014

Ymatebydd: The Warwick Society

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Heb nodi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

The tabulation in policy DS7 shows that 3,600 new homes have been completed since 2011 or had planning permission by 31 December 2013, that a further 3,100 sites will become available as windfalls, as Small Urban sites in the SHLAA and through the consolidation of existing employment areas and canal side regeneration; urban brownfield sites allocated in policy DS10 provide 1,300 new homes. The total without any use of greenfield land provides for 8,000 new homes.

The requirement for substantial expenditure on healthcare and education infrastructure would be very much reduced, and the needs of the growing population met by incremental expansion of existing facilities within the existing built up area.

The transport infrastructure requirement would be heavily reduced. The need to accommodate traffic growth, especially from greenfield developments south of Warwick, would disappear. Development sites within the existing built up areas would create much less demand for transport: local educational, healthcare, retail and leisure facilities would be largely within walking or cycling distance of the new homes.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66420

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Sharba Homes Group

Asiant : PJPlanning

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Heb nodi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

The Council appear to have made assumptions and assertions about where they feel it is appropriate to locate housing within the district, as well as the level of housing to be provided, before carrying out the relevant assessments with an open mind to reach such a conclusion. Thus, the process has begun from entirely the wrong premise and is based on evidence that is partial, inaccurate and subjective. It also shows little regard for the evidence base for the new Local Plan. Following the cessation of work on the 2010 Core Strategy the Council did not start the process anew, and instead merely attempted to rehash pre-determined strategies and development patterns.

The green belt allocations are not sufficiently justified as there are suitable sites outside the green belt. Exceptional circumstances pertaining to the 'need' for land are not proven. See reps relatibg to policies DS11 and DS19 as well.

A number of sites proposed in the Plan have previously been refused planning permission and cannot therefore be considered deliverable. Further the significant amount of development in one location on land to the south of Leamington Spa, will mean there is not enough choice to provide the level of competition required. The plan is not considered sufficiently robust to adapt to market conditionsdue to under-allocation of sites and little overall headroom.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66435

Derbyniwyd: 30/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Mrs Luisa Hodge

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

The Local Plan after emotive pressure from North Leamington protestors disregards green belt yet does not pursue with sufficient vigour preferable brownfield sites. The area of restraint between Myton Road and Europa Way is a case in point. It is high grade agricultural land full of wildlife, ancient trees and hedgerows. Since 2000 Warwick has undergone a large increase in population (12%) which is approximately twice the rate of Warwickshire and the national average and three times the increase for West Midlands. The plan is not justified as it crams so much of the new development into the already congested south part of the district. This is because of pressure from developers who wish to build in the areas which afford them most profit. Roads and schools in this area are already under pressure.
The plan is creating more car dependant suburbs. Recent development at Warwick Gates has not justified bus services. It will also contribute to the already illegal air quality in central Warwick.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66448

Derbyniwyd: 14/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr C Wood

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Ydi

The loss of Greenfield land is unsustainable.

The greenfield land that is planned to be destroyed is important both environmentally and agriculturally.

Impacts on Air Quality and on Health have not been satisfactorily assessed.

Existing poor air quality areas in the town centres will continue to suffer dangerous levels of pollution, and the suggestion that this will in time be eliminated by changes in technology is, as the air quality report itself states, dubious.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 66466

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Gladman Developments

Asiant : Stansgate Planning

Policy directs 1,330 dwellings to brownfield sites within the urban areas of the district's settlements, 850 dwellings to greenfield sites on the edge of Kenilworth, 3,245 dwellings to greenfield locations on the edge of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash, and 763 dwellings to sites within the districts Growth Villages and rural area.
LP explains proposed spatial strategy aims to meet housing needs by allocating sites across towns and in more sustainable villages. Seeks to maximise use of brownfield land by directing allocations to pd sites in urban areas first, bring forward greenfield sites where these are in sustainable locations, and avoid coalescence between settlements. Sets out that Green Belt sites will be limited to locations where exceptional circumstances can be justified.
Policy Analysis
Generally supportive of distribution strategy. Growth should be directed to key towns and villages with established services/facilities, ensuring creation of sustainable communities that have good access to range of jobs, community facilities, key services and infrastructure. However should not overlook need for further development in lower order sustainable settlements that could help to sustain existing services/facilities. Submit that further growth should be directed to identified Growth Villages, particularly in light of need to provide for a higher level of homes than currently proposed through LP.
Support identification of Radford Semele as location for further sustainable growth. As one of the Growth Villages, Radford Semele is one of the larger villages in the authority area with a population of nearly 2,000 and just over 800 dwellings. Village benefits from good range of local services/facilities,and from good public transport links to both Leamington Spa and Southam, where a wider range of employment opportunities and facilities are available.
Whilst supporting the decision to identify Radford Semele as a Rural Service Village, object to level of development proposed to be directed to the settlement. Previous LP Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries Consultation identified the village as an appropriate location to receive an allocation of 100-150 dwellings, but this has now been reduced to 50 dwellings consistent with proposed allocation North of Southam Road. Strongly submit there is no robust justification for this change in policy stance. The Council's May 2013 Draft Settlement Hierarchy Report identified Radford Semele as appropriate location to receive 100-150 dwellings. There is no basis for this figure to now be reduced based on the capacity of the North of Southam Road Allocation.
Radford Semele is not washed over by Green Belt or any other landscape designations. Although its development is constrained by an Area of Restraint that seeks to prevent the coalescence of the village with neighbouring urban areas, it is less constrained than other settlements and has ability to support further development. Although aware that further work has been undertaken to assess sensitivity of the landscape around the village to further development, submit that there are no justifiable reasons that would preclude Radford Semele from accommodating further sustainable development that could come forward in the short term to meet the district's housing needs. Submit that development targets for the village should be increased to at least 180 dwellings.
Would be opposed to re-use of previously developed land if this would preclude development from coming forward on sustainable greenfield sites. Whilst §111 of the Framework states that planning policies should encourage effective use of land by re-using land that has previously been developed, it does not state that brownfield development should be prioritised.
Conclusions on Soundness
Generally supportive of proposed distribution strategy, Growth Villages, particularly in light of the need to provide for a higher level of homes in the district. Whilst supporting identification of Radford Semele as a location for further growth, submit that there is no justifiable basis to now reduce level of residential development to be directed to the village.
6.1.9 There is no reason why Radford Semele cannot accommodate further sustainable development that could come forward in the short term. In this regard we submit that the housing targets for the village should now be increased to at least 180 homes.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66502

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Whitnash Town Council

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Nac Ydi

Majority of the houses (+-4655) are situated south of the River Leam. Not an appropriate distribution, and is unfair.
Population projection out of date, which substantially affects dwelling requirements. Mid 2012 projections show 28.7% reduction
in population expected by 2029 and this is a significant material change.Plan is unsound and does not meet NPPF requirements.
Address issues before submitting for examination

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66505

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Friends of the Earth

Nifer y bobl: 4

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Ydi

numbers as they are clearly linked to proposed policy DS6.
We still believe that the average housing densities on new development sites can be increased significantly without a reduction in design quality. Paragraph 47 of the NPPF clearly says 'local planning authorities should... set their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances'. In our view, Warwick District Council has not yet explained their 'approach to housing density'.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66609

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Richborough Estates Ltd

Asiant : Strutt & Parker

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Nac Ydi

The identification of 850 new homes on Greenfield sites on the edge of Kenilworth within Policy DS10 is not considered sound when considering the need to allocate additional land to ensure sufficient flexibility in housing delivery and the proposed amendments advocated by the representation to Policy DS11 outlined below. Policy DS10 could be made sound by increasing the number of new homes to be provided on the edge of Kenilworth through the allocation of the land controlled by Richborough at Warwick Road.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66680

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Save Warwick

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Ydi

The loss of Greenfield land is unsustainable. As only 8100 houses are needed over the plan period this can be met from permissions already granted together with the brown field sites identified in the plan. Greenfield sites are remote from schools, shops and other services and it has not been demonstrated that proposals for transport are going to be practicable/ effective. Much of this land (south of Warwick and Leamington in particular) is high grade agricultural which we cannot afford to lose.
The Plans Greenfield allocations are excessive and unnecessary as higher densities (using less land) will be attainable on previously developed/ brownfield land. The garden suburbs are extravagant; their low densities mean more land than what is necessary is being allocated for development.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 66694

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Michael Kelsey

Support the retention of green belt to the north of Leamington and the focus on development to the south of the towns thereby supporting business and making best use of existing infrastructure.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66708

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Barwood Strategic Land II Limited

Asiant : HOW Planning LLP

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Heb nodi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

Notwithstanding this support, Barwood reiterate paragraph 17 of the Framework which states that Local Planning Authorities should actively manage patterns of growth and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable. Additionally, the Framework states the supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or extensions to existing villages, which follow principles of Garden Cities.

Allocation of The Asps site would be consistent with the Council's spatial strategy,
furthermore The Asps offers the potential to deliver a Sustainable Urban
Extension.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66724

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Stephen Trinder

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Ydi

Vehemently object to a proposal which is not as yet part of the Draft Plan but which has been proposed with just days to spare by Lynnette Kelly, prospective Parliamentary Labour MP for Leamington Spa and Warwick at the next general election.
Not sure that I'm able to object to something that's not yet officially - and I believe deserves never to be - part of the Draft Plan.
Objections to the soundness of Kelly's proposals are summarised below:
Positively Prepared
"This means that the Plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development."
"Objectively Assessed Development"
Any possible amendment from Lynnette Kelly to the WDC Local Plan 2029 i.e.5000 houses on King's Hill on the WDC-Coventry boundary could not, as of June 2014, be positively prepared because:
There appear to be no current objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirement figures behind Kelly's proposals at the time she made them (late June 2014), and nor could there be.
With new ONS figures still under scrutiny, initially appearing to show lower figures for population increase in the WDC area than forecast, then Kelly's housebuilding proposals of 5000 houses for King's Hill could not possibly be based on a sound basis of need.The figures were still in flux.
No figures for infrastructure requirements and how they impact on her proposals appear to have been made.
Kelly's proposals also appear not to meet a neighbouring authority's unmet requirements, i.e. Coventry's. No suggestion that the boundary of Coventry be extended to include the new houses - indeed, Coventry's intervention in the whole affair was to offer to sell the land at King's Hill (currently owned by Coventry) to Warwick.
At no time was Kelly's call to move the 5000 Warwick houses to King's Hill presented as assisting a neighbouring authority. These would be Warwick houses.
WDC Plan, on the other hand, is sound and has been positively prepared, based as it is on has been objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements. New ONS figures appear to show lower figures for population increase in the WDC area than were initially forecast if anything suggest a need for fewer dwellings needed to be built in the WDC area over the Plan period.
No objective justification whatsoever for a wholesale unloading of 5000 housing units onto the edge of a neighbouring authority.
Achieving Sustainable Development"
The Kelly 5000-house to King's Hill transfer also makes a mockery of sustainable development because:
The proposed site, sits within yards of one of the thinnest greenbelts in the West Midlands and this whole area already faces massive turmoil and destruction from HS2. Construction traffic for King's Hill would, unbelievably, share narrow roads with that for HS2.
Traffic to and from the regionally vital University of Warwick, which injects £222 million-a-year into the local economy, already snarls up the same B-rated Stoneleigh Road that 4000-odd cars would disburse onto from Lynnette's proposed King's Hill mega-estate.
Construction of a new, dedicated A46 access point for the site would entail colossal delays and expense, on top of the Kenilworth Bypass closures already scheduled during HS2 construction.
Over 4000 local people (from 1931 households canvassed) signed a petition against just 3500 houses on this exact location when they were proposed in 2009. Resistance remains extremely strong.
Justified
"The Plan should be the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence."
The Kelly proposal is not based on proportionate evidence, and is not the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives. She has no up-to-date ONS figures to show a need for Warwick DC houses in King's Hill, there is no sustainable transport plan, takes no account of the turmoil and considerable destruction this area is already scheduled for from HS2 from 2017 onwards, and neglects to consider that many of the roads construction traffic for King's Hill would clog are already HS2 construction-traffic routes.
Not the most appropriate and reasonable strategy, but are a political move.
Effective
"The Plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities."
Consistent with national policy:
The King's Hill site is not a solution which supports reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, reduces congestion, or facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport. Reservations were made in 2009 about the ability of the site to achieve sustainable modes of transport.
With this route now scheduled for far greater use as part of the Electric Spine electrified railfreight line from Southampton to Nuneaton and thence to the North, it is unlikely that many slow, stopping trains could stop at a halt at the King's Hill development and no suggestions for such a rail line have even been included.Most of the 5000 house-dwellers on King's Hill would thus be expected to be car users, making this a wholly unsustainable transport site.
Most traffic to and from the site would be expected to use the A46, effectively an M road, the lack of opportunities for sustainable transport mode use would increase the pressure for new major transport infrastructure near and around the settlement.
Greatly increased traffic from King's Hill would further snarl up traffic along the B-rated Stoneleigh Road, which is used by very heavy numbers of Warwick University commuters going to and from their work, visits and study to the University.
The lack of sustainable access would greatly increase the need for new and widened traffic infrastructure on and around the site - such as a new southern relief road off the A46.
A Transport Statement or a Transport Assessment" has not yet been advanced.
As Kelly is proposing the King's Hill site as a Warwick settlement in WDC's area, her proposals run foul of NPPF Section 34's recommendations. New Warwick and Leamington Spa housing constructed in the vicinity of these settlements would better satisfy this advice. Warwick and Leamington people moving to King's Hill would need to commute back to these towns to work and burden an already extremely busy A46 Kenilworth Bypass as well as heavily used smaller roads
Most of the traffic from the King's Hill site would need to disburse onto and come off the A46 Kenilworth Bypass. This is, in effect, an M-road and unused by pedestrians, cyclists and bus services. The site would not, and cannot, have pedestrian, cycle, and high quality public transport facilities along its principal means of access and egress, the A46.
Lack of pedestrian footpath along Stoneleigh Road.
As the King's Hill settlement is proposed by Kelly as a Warwick settlement, the movement of largely Warwick people to and from a site eight miles from their normal jobs, friends, places and routines runs completely counter to a planning policy guided by Section 37.
The Kelly proposals of increasing the number of houses proposed from the 3500 under a previous proposal, which incorporated community parks, to 5000, which presumably would have far less area available hardly constitutes an attempt to "evolve designs that take account of the views of the community."
5000 houses on the King's Hill site, rather the 3500 discussed in 2009, would make delivery of shared space and community facilities, most especially parks, that much harder, if not impossible.
Density of the King's Hill site under Kelly's 5000-house suggestion would make NPPF recommendation very hard to achieve.
Building 5000 houses at King's Hill would run a coach and horses through points 1,2,3, and 4 of NPPF Section 80.
The setting and character of Kenilworth would also be damaged by King's Hill as it sits on an elevated position, giving views to and from Kenilworth and Coventry.
Putting 5000 Warwick District overspill houses on King's Hill would not retain or enhance King's Hill's landscape, its visual amenity or its biodiversity.
There are no 'very special circumstances'.
The King's Hill houses satisfy none of the criteria listed as acceptable for greenbelt building.
The landscape is valued by the people who signed a petition against possible construction of houses on this site in 2009. Placing 5000 houses, with little room for community sites or parks on elevated ground like this is not enhancing or protecting a valued landscape.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66740

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Edward Walpole-Brown

Asiant : Brown and Co

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Nac Ydi

In site selection this has not been adequately taken into account, in particular the relationship between sites at Hatton Green and Hatton Park

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66743

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Richard Brookes

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Ydi

The level of growth is too high. Since the publication of this Draft new ONS projections show that population growth between 2011 and 2029 is 15,300 compared with the joint SHMA figure of 23,800.
This error is compounded by the Joint SHMA using a Household Headship Ratio of 1.66 people per dwelling. If the ratios and sizes of affordable and market homes are taken into account this ratio should be 2.12. If this is applied to the new population projection this gives a housing requirement of 7,700. If the ratio of 1.66 is used this gives a requirement of 9,300.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66745

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Edward Walpole-Brown

Asiant : Brown and Co

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Nac Ydi

Insufficient regard has been given to the needs of sites within the rural areas to make sure key objectives of the plan can be satisfied in terms of the quantum of growth and ensure sustainable communities can be improved and services provided and retained

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66781

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Ydi

This does not take account of previous years oversupply; completions to date; sites under construction; vacant dwellings already returned; permissions not started; further permission between April and December 2013; offices to residences approved; windfall sites for the plan period; small urban sites on SHLAA sites and consolidation of existing employment areas and canal side development. This means that if the housing numbers identified as needed by a revised approach on population numbers and the conversion method to number of dwellings then no further applications need to be granted to meet the plan as there is already a surplus provision.

If the maximum figure for the reduced population projection figure of 9,217 is considered to be necessary, then to this list can be added allocated urban brownfield sites definites only; 2 greenfield sites in urban locations; 4 sites accepted in villages and 6 sites granted since January 2014 can be added giving 9,601 dwelling sites.

The reduced population projection and the related reduction in the number of houses required now means that the use of any further greenfield sites cannot be demonstrated to be necessary and those should be removed from DS11.

Grove Farm at 200 dwellings, future vacant dwellings return and a list of 543 C2 homes for the elderly can also be counted in the supply. With these it would not be necessary to keep the sensitive urban brownfield and sensitive greenfield in DS11.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 66829

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Europa Way Consortium

Asiant : AMEC

The Consortium supports the Council's decision to direct most new development to sites within, or to the edge, of main towns within the District, namely Leamington, Warwick, Whitnash and Kenilworth.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66842

Derbyniwyd: 03/07/2014

Ymatebydd: Patricia Hollis

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Ydi

The loss of Greenfield land is unsustainable. As only 8100 houses are needed over the plan period this can be met from permissions already granted together with the brown field sites identified in the plan. Greenfield sites are remote from schools, shops and other services and it has not been demonstrated that proposals for transport are going to be practicable/ effective. Much of this land (south of Warwick and Leamington in particular) is high grade agricultural which we cannot afford to lose.
The Plans Greenfield allocations are excessive and unnecessary as higher densities (using less land) will be attainable on previously developed/ brownfield land. The garden suburbs are extravagant; their low densities mean more land than what is necessary is being allocated for development.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66906

Derbyniwyd: 03/07/2014

Ymatebydd: Colin Sharp

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

The loss of Greenfield land is unsustainable. As only 8100 houses are needed over the plan period this can be met from permissions already granted together with the brown field sites identified in the plan. Greenfield sites are remote from schools, shops and other services and it has not been demonstrated that proposals for transport are going to be practicable/ effective. Much of this land (south of Warwick and Leamington in particular) is high grade agricultural which we cannot afford to lose.
The Plans Greenfield allocations are excessive and unnecessary as higher densities (using less land) will be attainable on previously developed/ brownfield land. The garden suburbs are extravagant; their low densities mean more land than what is necessary is being allocated for development.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66914

Derbyniwyd: 03/07/2014

Ymatebydd: Ms Alison Cox

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

The loss of Greenfield land is unsustainable. As only 8100 houses are needed over the plan period this can be met from permissions already granted together with the brown field sites identified in the plan. Greenfield sites are remote from schools, shops and other services and it has not been demonstrated that proposals for transport are going to be practicable/ effective. Much of this land (south of Warwick and Leamington in particular) is high grade agricultural which we cannot afford to lose.
The Plans Greenfield allocations are excessive and unnecessary as higher densities (using less land) will be attainable on previously developed/ brownfield land. The garden suburbs are extravagant; their low densities mean more land than what is necessary is being allocated for development.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66922

Derbyniwyd: 03/07/2014

Ymatebydd: Alison Kelly

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

The loss of Greenfield land is unsustainable. As only 8100 houses are needed over the plan period this can be met from permissions already granted together with the brown field sites identified in the plan. Greenfield sites are remote from schools, shops and other services and it has not been demonstrated that proposals for transport are going to be practicable/ effective. Much of this land (south of Warwick and Leamington in particular) is high grade agricultural which we cannot afford to lose.
The Plans Greenfield allocations are excessive and unnecessary as higher densities (using less land) will be attainable on previously developed/ brownfield land. The garden suburbs are extravagant; their low densities mean more land than what is necessary is being allocated for development.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66930

Derbyniwyd: 03/07/2014

Ymatebydd: Andrew Cliffe

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

The loss of Greenfield land is unsustainable. As only 8100 houses are needed over the plan period this can be met from permissions already granted together with the brown field sites identified in the plan. Greenfield sites are remote from schools, shops and other services and it has not been demonstrated that proposals for transport are going to be practicable/ effective. Much of this land (south of Warwick and Leamington in particular) is high grade agricultural which we cannot afford to lose.
The Plans Greenfield allocations are excessive and unnecessary as higher densities (using less land) will be attainable on previously developed/ brownfield land. The garden suburbs are extravagant; their low densities mean more land than what is necessary is being allocated for development.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66938

Derbyniwyd: 03/07/2014

Ymatebydd: Angelo Cugini

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

The loss of Greenfield land is unsustainable. As only 8100 houses are needed over the plan period this can be met from permissions already granted together with the brown field sites identified in the plan. Greenfield sites are remote from schools, shops and other services and it has not been demonstrated that proposals for transport are going to be practicable/ effective. Much of this land (south of Warwick and Leamington in particular) is high grade agricultural which we cannot afford to lose.
The Plans Greenfield allocations are excessive and unnecessary as higher densities (using less land) will be attainable on previously developed/ brownfield land. The garden suburbs are extravagant; their low densities mean more land than what is necessary is being allocated for development.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66946

Derbyniwyd: 03/07/2014

Ymatebydd: Barbara Groves

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

The loss of Greenfield land is unsustainable. As only 8100 houses are needed over the plan period this can be met from permissions already granted together with the brown field sites identified in the plan. Greenfield sites are remote from schools, shops and other services and it has not been demonstrated that proposals for transport are going to be practicable/ effective. Much of this land (south of Warwick and Leamington in particular) is high grade agricultural which we cannot afford to lose.
The Plans Greenfield allocations are excessive and unnecessary as higher densities (using less land) will be attainable on previously developed/ brownfield land. The garden suburbs are extravagant; their low densities mean more land than what is necessary is being allocated for development.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66954

Derbyniwyd: 03/07/2014

Ymatebydd: Professor Bob Ireland

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

The loss of Greenfield land is unsustainable. As only 8100 houses are needed over the plan period this can be met from permissions already granted together with the brown field sites identified in the plan. Greenfield sites are remote from schools, shops and other services and it has not been demonstrated that proposals for transport are going to be practicable/ effective. Much of this land (south of Warwick and Leamington in particular) is high grade agricultural which we cannot afford to lose.
The Plans Greenfield allocations are excessive and unnecessary as higher densities (using less land) will be attainable on previously developed/ brownfield land. The garden suburbs are extravagant; their low densities mean more land than what is necessary is being allocated for development.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66962

Derbyniwyd: 03/07/2014

Ymatebydd: Christopher Paden

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

The loss of Greenfield land is unsustainable. As only 8100 houses are needed over the plan period this can be met from permissions already granted together with the brown field sites identified in the plan. Greenfield sites are remote from schools, shops and other services and it has not been demonstrated that proposals for transport are going to be practicable/ effective. Much of this land (south of Warwick and Leamington in particular) is high grade agricultural which we cannot afford to lose.
The Plans Greenfield allocations are excessive and unnecessary as higher densities (using less land) will be attainable on previously developed/ brownfield land. The garden suburbs are extravagant; their low densities mean more land than what is necessary is being allocated for development.