Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 64517

Derbyniwyd: 25/05/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Daniel Badcock

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi

Cadarn? Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Ydi

Baginton and Leek Wooton derive much of their character from being within the setting of green belt land. These settlements are substantialy different from others on the list and should retain green belt status.

Dveleopment around Coventry airport may harm PRoW and the amenity value of surrounding green belt land. Development would be acceptable if balanced with benefits.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 64527

Derbyniwyd: 26/05/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Richard Thwaites

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Ydi

Inappropriate development within the green belt is to be resisted. The National Planning Policy Framework provides guidance on inappropriate development and identifies exceptions such as previously developed land.

All the sites except one, put forward for development within Hampton Magna are 100% greenfield agricultural land.

The Maple Lodge site is approx 25% previously developed land and it's development would be more compliant with NPPF policy.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 64921

Derbyniwyd: 17/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Ydi

The JPC is disappointed that WDC have not seized the opportunity to re-evaluate the Greenbelt within its area in a realistic and imaginative manner.

An aggressive "growth agenda" in a district of c.80% Greenbelt, with a near sacrosanct approach to Greenbelt puts unrealistic and unsustainable pressure on the remaining non-Greenbelt area, south of Warwick and Leamington, and renders this Draft Local Plan UNSOUND.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 65076

Derbyniwyd: 26/06/2014

Ymatebydd: The Community Group

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Nac Ydi

Policy DS16 Sub-Regional Employment Site is unsound, it contravenes the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework); there has been no consultation with the local community and other stakeholders concerning the removal of this land from Green Belt; the Sub-Regional Employment Site is NOT the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives.
There are no 'exceptional circumstances' that would justify the revision of the Green Belt in this location. The identified site should be removed from the proposals map and the area around Coventry airport retained in Green Belt.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 65119

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Nurton Developments & the Forrester Family

Asiant : Chave Planning

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Nac Ydi

In view of our other representations in respect of Policies DS6, DS7 and DS20, it is considered that the Local Plan needs to make provision for more housing and further land will need to be removed from the Green Belt.

Policy DS19 should therefore make provision for further land to be released from the Green Belt and for the Green Belt to be reviewed through the review of the Local Plan.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 65123

Derbyniwyd: 23/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Bubbenhall Parish Council

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Ydi

The proposal to remove land for a sub-regional employment site in the vicinity of Coventry Airport from the Green Belt has NOT been the subject of appropriate public consultation with the local communities and other stakeholders. The Revised Development Strategy June 2013 identified the site for employment but retained it in Green Belt.

This area of Green Belt south of the City of Coventry is crucial to the prevention of urban sprawl as identified in the NPPF. The VERY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES required to remove this land from Green Belt are NOT PROVED.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 65175

Derbyniwyd: 24/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Sundial Group Ltd

Asiant : Mr Marcus Bates

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Nac Ydi

Land at Woodside Training Centre SHLAA 14 Reference K19 remains in the draft proposals as a wedge of isolated Green Belt surrounded by built development (allocation ED2 and HO6) and the A46. With this in mind and conscious that the land already includes areas of significant built development and hardstanding, it is our view that this land fails to meet any of the five stated purposes of including land within the Green Belt.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 65213

Derbyniwyd: 24/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Kenilworth Society

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Nac Ydi

The Kenilworth Society considers that the removal of these sites is unsound because:
a) The Local Planning Authority has not involved the community in the preparation of this part of the Plan. The "Revised Development Strategy" that was published for public consultation in June 2013 retained all three sites in the green belt.
b) There do not appear to be good planning reasons for the removal of these sites from the green belt. In the case of the Coventry Gateway, the reason seems to be the local planning authority's retrospective justification of consent to a planning application. The Draft Local Plan does not provide evidence to support the change. Nor does Sustainability Appraisal Report assess the merits or otherwise of removing the sites from the green belt. It merely states that they are within the green belt.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 65337

Derbyniwyd: 25/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Carl Stevens

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Nac Ydi

Whilst the council attach much to the removal of green belt areas from the plan. That has been indiscriminate and not applied in a fair and robust way. Basic common sense is that the number of houses proposed on green belt is low in % terms in the plan leading to questions about the soundness of the decision that circumstances are exceptional under NPFF.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 65340

Derbyniwyd: 25/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Peter Barclay

I support the plan as drafted, as it allows for the controlled incursion into current greenbelt land that is deemed necessary for a controlled expansion of housing to extend existing communities. However I am concerned that the recent news in the press regarding Kings Hill may be re-considered as a possible development site for 5,000 homes within the new local plan. This type of development would destroy ay kind of boundary between Coventry and Kenilworth, creating an urban sprawl that would be unsupportable by the current road infrastructure.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 65347

Derbyniwyd: 25/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Mrs Laura Teodorczyk

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Nac Ydi

The NPPF generally protects Green Belts from development. It does encourage some specific growth, but this should be concentrated on previously-developed land or within towns/villages, NOT to the edge of villages.

WDC has not published its discussions with neighbouring authorities, so working to an assessment based on the maximum 12,900 across the district is premature.

WDC has not clearly adopted a sequential test to prioritise development in brownfield locations, and is not doing enough to deliver homes on current development sites and other derelict urban sites (eg along the canal).

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 65352

Derbyniwyd: 26/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Martin Teodorczyk

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Nac Ydi

The NPPF generally protects Green Belts from development. It does encourage some specific growth, but this should be concentrated on
previously-developed land or within towns/villages, NOT to the edge of villages.

Development is proposed in Green Belt locations when the "exceptional circumstances" required in the NPPF do not exist.

WDC has not clearly adopted a sequential test to prioritise development in brownfield locations, and is not doing enough to deliver homes as part of mixed use development on brownfield sites (e.g. land around Leamington station).

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 65355

Derbyniwyd: 26/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Martin Teodorczyk

This should not detract from my other representations made, specifically about how the Green Belt is not suitable for development as exceptional circumstances do not exist.

However I support the principle that where a site is to be taken out of the Green Belt to facilitate development, settlement boundaries are drawn tightly and decisively to provide a clear distinction between the settlement envelope and the Green Belt.

This will protect the remaining Green Belt more strongly and eliminate ambiguity where Green Belt 'washes over' settlements.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 65363

Derbyniwyd: 26/06/2014

Ymatebydd: John Bausor

Asiant : Keyhaven Consulting Limited

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Ydi

The Plan is not justified in that the inclusion of these sites at Crew Lane for housing and their exclusion from the Green Belt is, in part, a reasonable alternative to the provision of housing in Kenilworth on a very limited number of large sites.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 65384

Derbyniwyd: 26/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Richard Taulbut

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Ydi

DS19 proposes release of Green Belt land at Red House Farm. Release of such land is only justified in exceptional circumstances. No such circumstances have been given.
At DS11 and DS18 it is stated that this land will be used for 250 houses in support of the regeneration of Lillington. However, the same proportion of affordable houses (40%) is proposed as in every other part of the district. Therefore the need cannot be seen as exceptional. Repair and renewal of social housing is the every-day business of local authorities. It is not exceptional and cannot justify release of Greenbelt.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 65399

Derbyniwyd: 26/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr. Robert Taylor

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Nac Ydi

I strongly object to Baginton losing its greenbelt status. There is no justification for this in the government guidelines as quoted in the draft local plan so therefore WDC cannot remove the greenbelt designation from Baginton.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 65411

Derbyniwyd: 26/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Cllr George Illingworth

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Ydi

In paragraph 2.81 it is proposed to include "Land in the vicinity of Coventry Airport (sub-regional employment site)" amongst areas to be removed from the Green Belt. It is national planning policy that changes to the Green Belt can only be made in exceptional circumstances through the Local Plan process involving public consultation and robust examination. On this particular change there has not only been no public consultation, but a complete reversal of the previously consulted policy.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 65424

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Nurton Developments

Asiant : Chave Planning

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Nac Ydi

In view of our other representations in respect of Policies DS6, DS7 and DS20, it is considered that the Local Plan needs to make provision for more housing and further land will need to be removed from the Green Belt.

Policy DS19 should therefore make provision for further land to be released from the Green Belt and for the Green Belt to be reviewed through the review of the Local Plan.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 65426

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Burton Green Parish Council

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Ydi

We accept taking the site for housing allocation out of green belt. We do not accept that the existing properties in the village need to be taken out of the green belt.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 65450

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Sworders

We support this policy as it is entirely in accordance with national policy and consequently sound. Our support is, however, on the basis that the Green Belt boundary as per the policies map includes the Green belt releases necessary to deliver the District's housing needs. Without the Green Belt Review the Green belt boundary would not endure beyond the plan period and consequently fall foul of paragraph 83 of the NPPF and be unsound.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 65475

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: King Henry VIII Endowed Trust (Warwick)

Asiant : AMEC

The District Council's decision to review Green Belt boundaries is consistent with national planning policy guidance. The lack of suitable and available sites to meet objectively assessed housing needs provides the exceptional circumstances for a review of Green Belt boundaries. However before land can be released from the Green Belt for development it has to be shown that doing so would not be in conflict with the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy nor the stated five purposes it serves (refer NPPF paragraphs 79 - 80). This has been achieved via the Warwick District Council's own review of village green belt boundaries undertaken in 2013 to inform the Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundary Consultation (November 2013).
We consider the approach adopted in the District Council's Green Belt study to be sound and the key findings robust.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 65482

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: The National Trust

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Ydi

Policy DS19 'Green Belt' does not make clear the full extent of development being proposed in the Green Belt and would benefit from much better cross-referencing with other policies and proposals in the plan

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 65493

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Sarah Palmer

Asiant : Davies and Co

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Ydi

The removal of villages (where currently "washed over") from the Green Belt is logical and is supported. However, specifically in relation to Burton Green, the continuance of Green Belt status for the land at Red Lane, described in our representation under DS11 is objected to.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 65508

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Keith Wellsted

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Nac Ydi

Whilst I support the concept of the Green Belt you have already decided to remove some land from it so this is possible. The current Green Belt envisaged Coventry growing towards Leamington and Kenilworth and sought to stop this. The area south of Leamington was seen as safe. This has led you to place to high a burden on this area in the plan.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 65520

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Sharba Homes Group

Asiant : PJPlanning

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Nac Ydi

Green Belt sites have been chosed before non-greenbelt sites have been exhausted. It is clear that there is a vast disproportion of distribution throughout the District's villages. Larger, more sustainable villages, with boundaries outside of Green Belt are proposed to accommodate far less housing when compared to smaller, less sustainable villages tightly constrained by Green Belt. 64% of the total requirement is expected to be achieved from villages currently within Green Belt, despite Barford and Radford Semele being capable of accommodating far higher levels of housing than proposed. As there are additional sites within these two non Green Belt villages that can accommodate housing without the need for incursions into Green Belt the approach to is unsound and does not comply with national policy.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 65631

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Lioncourt Strategic Land - Andy Faizey

Asiant : Savills

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Nac Ydi

The Local Plan is not sound as it has not been positively prepared, justified and is not consistent with National Policy. The Green Belt Review 2009 identified Oaklea Farm and Baginton as sensitive sites and as such, retained in the Green Belt. These same sites are now proposed to be released from the Green Belt. The site at Kings Hill, Finham however, was recommended for further detailed study and this has not been carried out. Furthermore, the Green Belt and Green Field Review 2013 does not assess the Kings Hill site, but no reason for this is given.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 65681

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Stoneleigh & Ashow Parish Council

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Nac Ydi

The list of sites proposed to be removed from the Green Belt includes "land in the vicinity of Coventry Airport (sub-regional employment site)". This change was not included in previous versions of the emerging WDC plan, The RDS explicitly argued against such a course of action. There has therefore been no prior consultation on this proposed GB change. This makes the proposed policy unsound and unjustified because the consultation process has not allowed effective engagement of interested parties.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 65710

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Trustees of the Haseley Settlement

Asiant : RPS Planning & Development

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Heb nodi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

The Council has failed to ensure the permanence of the Green Belt to ensure beyond the Plan period as required by the NPPF. The Council has not provided for its objectively assessed need nor made satisfactory provision for the level of housing generated from the Gateway site. The level to which the Green Belt has been amended is insufficient to meet the needs of the District and Sub-Region. There is no formal commitment to undertake a strategic review of the Green Belt despite committing to reviewing housing numbers by 2015 within the CWLEP Strategic Growth Plan. The SHLAA identifies a number of village sites suitable for development subject to green belt boundaries being amended. However the plan fails to take the SHLAA into account when drawing the settlement boundaries of the villages within the Green Belt. For example despite the SHLAA identifying site R39 at Hatton Green as suitable and available the proposed village boundary excludes the site. No housing sites are identified at Hatton Green despite it being a sustainable location with a primary school, nursery school and community facilities. In direct contrast 80 dwellings are proposed at Hatton Park which has no facilities and is considered to extend the built form beyond clearly identifiable and defensible limits of green belt.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 65828

Derbyniwyd: 25/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Mrs E Brown

Asiant : Stansgate Planning

The Council has recognised the need to allocate existing Green Belt land for residential development. This has been fully justified. It is therefore essential that the Green Belt boundaries be amended to allow the development to proceed, as set out in DS19 and paragraph 2.80.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 65879

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Centaur Homes

Asiant : McLoughlin Planning

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Nac Ydi

This policy restates national policy and does not provide any further information and as the Framework is a material consideration in the decision taking process this document should already be referred to without the need for this policy to explicitly state it.Therefore, it does not accord with paragraph 154 of the Framework