Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 64519

Derbyniwyd: 26/05/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Richard Thwaites

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Ydi

The preferred option for Hampton Magna was well known before the start of the consultation process, rendering the whole process invalid. The preferred level of growth was ignored and the distribution of growth and proposed housing sites took no notice of overwhelming local objection. 99% of respondents were opposed to the preferred option for development, 92% of the respondents were in favour of the Maple Lodge site being selected as the preferred option for development

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 65326

Derbyniwyd: 25/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Carl Stevens

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Ydi

The consultation process has been undermined by council and planners not taking enough account of the many consistent views of the people that count - the voting public, their MP, local councillors...

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 65419

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Mrs J Mackenzie

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Nac Ydi

Consultation. This highly legalistic and inaccessible to the general public consultation contains items on which there has been no previous consultation. Certain points eg Gateway to be taken out of the green belt have been introduced into this final version.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 65643

Derbyniwyd: 24/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Barry Lovekin

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Ydi

The allotted time period of 6 week for comments before the plan is submitted to the Secretary of State is surely too short for obtaining a considered reply from the majority of citizens of Warwick, Leamington and surrounding villages, given the extent of the planned expansion and complexity of the plan which will have a profound effect on Warwick District and this part of England.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 65690

Derbyniwyd: 23/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Richard Evans

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

Additional sites at Kenilworth included in the plan without previous consultation.

Lack of taking into account local feeling. Council have disregarded local view for heavier level of development.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 65750

Derbyniwyd: 25/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Robert Price

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Heb nodi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

There has not been a genuine process of consultation. The initial consultation indicated a majority in favour of a low level 5,500 whereas as the eventual plan proposes 12,900. Although the plan has been presented to the public at various stages there has been little change as a result of public opposition to the overall scale of development, urbanisation of the south of the district, encroachment on the green belt. The final revision of H28 (Hatton Park) reducing the site area without reducing the house numbers took place without consultation with the local community although the authority was in contact with the developer.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 65890

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Hazel and Robin Fryer

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Nac Ydi

The plan has not engaged with community involvement at all stages of its production. A number of issues have been altered since the previous public consultation and the Local PLan is not ready for submission to an inspector. Response format and short time period for consultation makes it difficult for the general public to make a contribution on outstanding issues. Unpublished sub regional policies have been used to make major decisions which circumvents public consultation.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66203

Derbyniwyd: 01/07/2014

Ymatebydd: Hatton Parish Council

Nifer y bobl: 53

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

There has not been a genuine process of consultation.

The initial consultation as to the level of development indicated a majority in favour of a low level (about 5,500 dwellings). The eventual plan proposes 12,900.

Although the Plan has been presented to the public at the various stages of its evolution, there has been little change as a result of the response from the public opposing the overall scale of development, urbanisation of the South of the District and encroachment on the Green Belt.

Site H28 (Hatton Park): The final revision of this site, reducing the site area without commensurate reduction in housing numbers took place without proper consultation with the local community, although the Authority was in contact with the developer involved

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66350

Derbyniwyd: 26/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr Dean Epton

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Heb nodi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

No genuine process of consultation. Document presented to public at various stages of its evolution but little change resulting from response regarding scale of development, urbanisation of south and encroachment into Green Belt

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66354

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Miss Emma Bromley

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

WDC has ignored the views of local people who live in the areas most affected by the proposed development despite high numbers of objection. Yet developers have been consulted and applications have been granted despite valid objections against them.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66355

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

WDC has ignored the views of local people who live in the areas most affected by the proposed development despite high numbers of objection. Yet developers have been consulted and applications have been granted despite valid objections against them.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66367

Derbyniwyd: 30/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr john fletcher

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Heb nodi

Cadarn? Heb nodi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

Several held and absence of district councillors and lack of changes as result of public objections evident

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66375

Derbyniwyd: 23/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Mrs Elaine Kemp

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Heb nodi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

There has not been a genuine consultation process. Most people favoured a low level of housing growth. Although consultations have taken place there has been little change to the overall scale of development, the impact on the south of the District and the impact on the green belt.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66386

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Warwick Town Council

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Ydi

Local councils and people have been firm in their assessment that the number of dwellings proposed is far in excess of local needs. These views have been repeatedly rejected by WDC and at no time has it shown a willingness to work with Warwick town Council or local residentas to achieve a draft plan which reflected local views and could be supported.

The District Council consultation ignored the intentions and expectations of the Localism Act 2011, which is that the Local PLan would be fully reflective of decision making by local people. Confirmed by Andrew Langley MP whose advice was that WDC would apply the NPPF in the context of decision making by local people.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66395

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Cllr Elizabeth Higgins

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Heb nodi

Cadarn? Heb nodi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

Consultation with and involvement of interested parties is flawed.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66418

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Sharba Homes Group

Asiant : PJPlanning

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Heb nodi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

It is our belief that consultation responses to the plan, and other supporting reports to inform it have not been fully considered; in particular there has been no detailed response made to our, or most of other party's comments to the VHO, or previous versions of the Local Plan.

In light of this, we submit that the plan cannot be declared positively prepared until such consultation is shown to have directly informed plan making, with detailed responses to consultations having been published.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66542

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: CPRE WARWICKSHIRE

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Heb nodi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

The strategy has changed against the siwhes of local people. The previous plan was conservation-minded, but the proposed approach now if for growth with higher levels of employment, population and housing than needed. The New Local Plan is unsound because it does not contain adequate justification for this fundamental change of approach.

Maintaining and enhancing the environment of the district does not appear in the list of five key priorities in paragraph 1.40, yet this is importnat to the charatcer of the District.

It is not clear from the Plan what provision is currently made to meet the housing needs of neighbouring areas. It seems to us that because the Plan assumes substantial continuing in-migration, there is already in effect significant provision for meeting needs originating elsewhere. However Policy DS20 of the Plan is ominous because it envisages even higher housing provision.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66686

Derbyniwyd: 27/06/2014

Ymatebydd: Save Warwick

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Ydi

There have been serious shortcomings in the processes the Council has used in the development of the Plan. The Council has not properly considered the representations on the Local Plan submitted by residents and the community.

*The Plan does not comply in terms of the letter and spirit of the NPPF and the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
*The Council's approach to "pre-determination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption.

*It is the view of Save Warwick that the processes undertaken in the course of the preparation of the local plan by the District Council denied the public, councillors and other consultees genuine participation in the plan making process by:-
-Ignoring representations and / or delaying the council's responses to the representations until the plan had moved on irrevocably. In particular (by omission or neglect) the council's elected Members were not given the opportunity to give proper and timely consideration of the representations made to the council by residents and other interested parties in response to the consultation which took place in July 2013. Councillors did not see anything other than summaries until March 2014 at the same meeting they were being asked to approve the local plan. Since it is the role of officers to advise and members to decide this seems inadequate / unsatisfactory. With such a process it is impossible for those who made representations to have confidence that due consideration was given to their concerns.

-Using the delay of consideration of representations as a tool to enable pre-empting of the local plan by enabling developers and landowners to submit applications for development of the southern areas to which numerous and serious objections and representations had been lodged and not resolved. Officers were afforded the ability to press on with master planning for the areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash in face of the objections.

-The consideration of new ONS statistics on population growth was delayed which has led to more land and housing being allocated than what is actually required. This will require the loss of more precious agricultural land than is really necessary).
Operating a regime where the threat of "pre-determination" was used in contravention of the spirit of the Localism Act as a means of (unintentionally or not) of quelling proper debate in council, and councillor involvement in community debate on planning issues. A culture was established which prevented the healthy debate of planning matters (in contravention of the provisions set out in the plain English Guide to the Localism Act 2011). The approach adopted by the Council to "predetermination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption. By doing so it is doubtful that it has complied with the letter of Section 25 of the Localities Act.
*In summary the Council has not followed the correct processes and has not properly engaged with its consultees and its community. It is Save Warwick's opinion that the Council has been reluctant to accept the role of community in the formulation of planning strategy, and in doing so may have opened itself to the possibility of legal challenge about the process it has followed.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66848

Derbyniwyd: 03/07/2014

Ymatebydd: Patricia Hollis

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Ydi

There have been serious shortcomings in the processes the Council has used in the development of the Plan. The Council has not properly considered the representations on the Local Plan submitted by residents and the community.

*The Plan does not comply in terms of the letter and spirit of the NPPF and the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
*The Council's approach to "pre-determination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption.

*It is the view of Save Warwick that the processes undertaken in the course of the preparation of the local plan by the District Council denied the public, councillors and other consultees genuine participation in the plan making process by:-
-Ignoring representations and / or delaying the council's responses to the representations until the plan had moved on irrevocably. In particular (by omission or neglect) the council's elected Members were not given the opportunity to give proper and timely consideration of the representations made to the council by residents and other interested parties in response to the consultation which took place in July 2013. Councillors did not see anything other than summaries until March 2014 at the same meeting they were being asked to approve the local plan. Since it is the role of officers to advise and members to decide this seems inadequate / unsatisfactory. With such a process it is impossible for those who made representations to have confidence that due consideration was given to their concerns.

-Using the delay of consideration of representations as a tool to enable pre-empting of the local plan by enabling developers and landowners to submit applications for development of the southern areas to which numerous and serious objections and representations had been lodged and not resolved. Officers were afforded the ability to press on with master planning for the areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash in face of the objections.

-The consideration of new ONS statistics on population growth was delayed which has led to more land and housing being allocated than what is actually required. This will require the loss of more precious agricultural land than is really necessary).
Operating a regime where the threat of "pre-determination" was used in contravention of the spirit of the Localism Act as a means of (unintentionally or not) of quelling proper debate in council, and councillor involvement in community debate on planning issues. A culture was established which prevented the healthy debate of planning matters (in contravention of the provisions set out in the plain English Guide to the Localism Act 2011). The approach adopted by the Council to "predetermination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption. By doing so it is doubtful that it has complied with the letter of Section 25 of the Localities Act.
*In summary the Council has not followed the correct processes and has not properly engaged with its consultees and its community. It is Save Warwick's opinion that the Council has been reluctant to accept the role of community in the formulation of planning strategy, and in doing so may have opened itself to the possibility of legal challenge about the process it has followed.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66905

Derbyniwyd: 03/07/2014

Ymatebydd: Colin Sharp

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

There have been serious shortcomings in the processes the Council has used in the development of the Plan. The Council has not properly considered the representations on the Local Plan submitted by residents and the community.

*The Plan does not comply in terms of the letter and spirit of the NPPF and the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
*The Council's approach to "pre-determination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption.

*It is the view of Save Warwick that the processes undertaken in the course of the preparation of the local plan by the District Council denied the public, councillors and other consultees genuine participation in the plan making process by:-
-Ignoring representations and / or delaying the council's responses to the representations until the plan had moved on irrevocably. In particular (by omission or neglect) the council's elected Members were not given the opportunity to give proper and timely consideration of the representations made to the council by residents and other interested parties in response to the consultation which took place in July 2013. Councillors did not see anything other than summaries until March 2014 at the same meeting they were being asked to approve the local plan. Since it is the role of officers to advise and members to decide this seems inadequate / unsatisfactory. With such a process it is impossible for those who made representations to have confidence that due consideration was given to their concerns.

-Using the delay of consideration of representations as a tool to enable pre-empting of the local plan by enabling developers and landowners to submit applications for development of the southern areas to which numerous and serious objections and representations had been lodged and not resolved. Officers were afforded the ability to press on with master planning for the areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash in face of the objections.

-The consideration of new ONS statistics on population growth was delayed which has led to more land and housing being allocated than what is actually required. This will require the loss of more precious agricultural land than is really necessary).
Operating a regime where the threat of "pre-determination" was used in contravention of the spirit of the Localism Act as a means of (unintentionally or not) of quelling proper debate in council, and councillor involvement in community debate on planning issues. A culture was established which prevented the healthy debate of planning matters (in contravention of the provisions set out in the plain English Guide to the Localism Act 2011). The approach adopted by the Council to "predetermination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption. By doing so it is doubtful that it has complied with the letter of Section 25 of the Localities Act.
*In summary the Council has not followed the correct processes and has not properly engaged with its consultees and its community. It is Save Warwick's opinion that the Council has been reluctant to accept the role of community in the formulation of planning strategy, and in doing so may have opened itself to the possibility of legal challenge about the process it has followed.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66913

Derbyniwyd: 03/07/2014

Ymatebydd: Ms Alison Cox

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

There have been serious shortcomings in the processes the Council has used in the development of the Plan. The Council has not properly considered the representations on the Local Plan submitted by residents and the community.

*The Plan does not comply in terms of the letter and spirit of the NPPF and the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
*The Council's approach to "pre-determination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption.

*It is the view of Save Warwick that the processes undertaken in the course of the preparation of the local plan by the District Council denied the public, councillors and other consultees genuine participation in the plan making process by:-
-Ignoring representations and / or delaying the council's responses to the representations until the plan had moved on irrevocably. In particular (by omission or neglect) the council's elected Members were not given the opportunity to give proper and timely consideration of the representations made to the council by residents and other interested parties in response to the consultation which took place in July 2013. Councillors did not see anything other than summaries until March 2014 at the same meeting they were being asked to approve the local plan. Since it is the role of officers to advise and members to decide this seems inadequate / unsatisfactory. With such a process it is impossible for those who made representations to have confidence that due consideration was given to their concerns.

-Using the delay of consideration of representations as a tool to enable pre-empting of the local plan by enabling developers and landowners to submit applications for development of the southern areas to which numerous and serious objections and representations had been lodged and not resolved. Officers were afforded the ability to press on with master planning for the areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash in face of the objections.

-The consideration of new ONS statistics on population growth was delayed which has led to more land and housing being allocated than what is actually required. This will require the loss of more precious agricultural land than is really necessary).
Operating a regime where the threat of "pre-determination" was used in contravention of the spirit of the Localism Act as a means of (unintentionally or not) of quelling proper debate in council, and councillor involvement in community debate on planning issues. A culture was established which prevented the healthy debate of planning matters (in contravention of the provisions set out in the plain English Guide to the Localism Act 2011). The approach adopted by the Council to "predetermination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption. By doing so it is doubtful that it has complied with the letter of Section 25 of the Localities Act.
*In summary the Council has not followed the correct processes and has not properly engaged with its consultees and its community. It is Save Warwick's opinion that the Council has been reluctant to accept the role of community in the formulation of planning strategy, and in doing so may have opened itself to the possibility of legal challenge about the process it has followed.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66921

Derbyniwyd: 03/07/2014

Ymatebydd: Alison Kelly

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

There have been serious shortcomings in the processes the Council has used in the development of the Plan. The Council has not properly considered the representations on the Local Plan submitted by residents and the community.

*The Plan does not comply in terms of the letter and spirit of the NPPF and the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
*The Council's approach to "pre-determination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption.

*It is the view of Save Warwick that the processes undertaken in the course of the preparation of the local plan by the District Council denied the public, councillors and other consultees genuine participation in the plan making process by:-
-Ignoring representations and / or delaying the council's responses to the representations until the plan had moved on irrevocably. In particular (by omission or neglect) the council's elected Members were not given the opportunity to give proper and timely consideration of the representations made to the council by residents and other interested parties in response to the consultation which took place in July 2013. Councillors did not see anything other than summaries until March 2014 at the same meeting they were being asked to approve the local plan. Since it is the role of officers to advise and members to decide this seems inadequate / unsatisfactory. With such a process it is impossible for those who made representations to have confidence that due consideration was given to their concerns.

-Using the delay of consideration of representations as a tool to enable pre-empting of the local plan by enabling developers and landowners to submit applications for development of the southern areas to which numerous and serious objections and representations had been lodged and not resolved. Officers were afforded the ability to press on with master planning for the areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash in face of the objections.

-The consideration of new ONS statistics on population growth was delayed which has led to more land and housing being allocated than what is actually required. This will require the loss of more precious agricultural land than is really necessary).
Operating a regime where the threat of "pre-determination" was used in contravention of the spirit of the Localism Act as a means of (unintentionally or not) of quelling proper debate in council, and councillor involvement in community debate on planning issues. A culture was established which prevented the healthy debate of planning matters (in contravention of the provisions set out in the plain English Guide to the Localism Act 2011). The approach adopted by the Council to "predetermination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption. By doing so it is doubtful that it has complied with the letter of Section 25 of the Localities Act.
*In summary the Council has not followed the correct processes and has not properly engaged with its consultees and its community. It is Save Warwick's opinion that the Council has been reluctant to accept the role of community in the formulation of planning strategy, and in doing so may have opened itself to the possibility of legal challenge about the process it has followed.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66929

Derbyniwyd: 03/07/2014

Ymatebydd: Andrew Cliffe

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

There have been serious shortcomings in the processes the Council has used in the development of the Plan. The Council has not properly considered the representations on the Local Plan submitted by residents and the community.

*The Plan does not comply in terms of the letter and spirit of the NPPF and the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
*The Council's approach to "pre-determination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption.

*It is the view of Save Warwick that the processes undertaken in the course of the preparation of the local plan by the District Council denied the public, councillors and other consultees genuine participation in the plan making process by:-
-Ignoring representations and / or delaying the council's responses to the representations until the plan had moved on irrevocably. In particular (by omission or neglect) the council's elected Members were not given the opportunity to give proper and timely consideration of the representations made to the council by residents and other interested parties in response to the consultation which took place in July 2013. Councillors did not see anything other than summaries until March 2014 at the same meeting they were being asked to approve the local plan. Since it is the role of officers to advise and members to decide this seems inadequate / unsatisfactory. With such a process it is impossible for those who made representations to have confidence that due consideration was given to their concerns.

-Using the delay of consideration of representations as a tool to enable pre-empting of the local plan by enabling developers and landowners to submit applications for development of the southern areas to which numerous and serious objections and representations had been lodged and not resolved. Officers were afforded the ability to press on with master planning for the areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash in face of the objections.

-The consideration of new ONS statistics on population growth was delayed which has led to more land and housing being allocated than what is actually required. This will require the loss of more precious agricultural land than is really necessary).
Operating a regime where the threat of "pre-determination" was used in contravention of the spirit of the Localism Act as a means of (unintentionally or not) of quelling proper debate in council, and councillor involvement in community debate on planning issues. A culture was established which prevented the healthy debate of planning matters (in contravention of the provisions set out in the plain English Guide to the Localism Act 2011). The approach adopted by the Council to "predetermination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption. By doing so it is doubtful that it has complied with the letter of Section 25 of the Localities Act.
*In summary the Council has not followed the correct processes and has not properly engaged with its consultees and its community. It is Save Warwick's opinion that the Council has been reluctant to accept the role of community in the formulation of planning strategy, and in doing so may have opened itself to the possibility of legal challenge about the process it has followed.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66937

Derbyniwyd: 03/07/2014

Ymatebydd: Angelo Cugini

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

There have been serious shortcomings in the processes the Council has used in the development of the Plan. The Council has not properly considered the representations on the Local Plan submitted by residents and the community.

*The Plan does not comply in terms of the letter and spirit of the NPPF and the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
*The Council's approach to "pre-determination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption.

*It is the view of Save Warwick that the processes undertaken in the course of the preparation of the local plan by the District Council denied the public, councillors and other consultees genuine participation in the plan making process by:-
-Ignoring representations and / or delaying the council's responses to the representations until the plan had moved on irrevocably. In particular (by omission or neglect) the council's elected Members were not given the opportunity to give proper and timely consideration of the representations made to the council by residents and other interested parties in response to the consultation which took place in July 2013. Councillors did not see anything other than summaries until March 2014 at the same meeting they were being asked to approve the local plan. Since it is the role of officers to advise and members to decide this seems inadequate / unsatisfactory. With such a process it is impossible for those who made representations to have confidence that due consideration was given to their concerns.

-Using the delay of consideration of representations as a tool to enable pre-empting of the local plan by enabling developers and landowners to submit applications for development of the southern areas to which numerous and serious objections and representations had been lodged and not resolved. Officers were afforded the ability to press on with master planning for the areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash in face of the objections.

-The consideration of new ONS statistics on population growth was delayed which has led to more land and housing being allocated than what is actually required. This will require the loss of more precious agricultural land than is really necessary).
Operating a regime where the threat of "pre-determination" was used in contravention of the spirit of the Localism Act as a means of (unintentionally or not) of quelling proper debate in council, and councillor involvement in community debate on planning issues. A culture was established which prevented the healthy debate of planning matters (in contravention of the provisions set out in the plain English Guide to the Localism Act 2011). The approach adopted by the Council to "predetermination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption. By doing so it is doubtful that it has complied with the letter of Section 25 of the Localities Act.
*In summary the Council has not followed the correct processes and has not properly engaged with its consultees and its community. It is Save Warwick's opinion that the Council has been reluctant to accept the role of community in the formulation of planning strategy, and in doing so may have opened itself to the possibility of legal challenge about the process it has followed.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66945

Derbyniwyd: 03/07/2014

Ymatebydd: Barbara Groves

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

There have been serious shortcomings in the processes the Council has used in the development of the Plan. The Council has not properly considered the representations on the Local Plan submitted by residents and the community.

*The Plan does not comply in terms of the letter and spirit of the NPPF and the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
*The Council's approach to "pre-determination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption.

*It is the view of Save Warwick that the processes undertaken in the course of the preparation of the local plan by the District Council denied the public, councillors and other consultees genuine participation in the plan making process by:-
-Ignoring representations and / or delaying the council's responses to the representations until the plan had moved on irrevocably. In particular (by omission or neglect) the council's elected Members were not given the opportunity to give proper and timely consideration of the representations made to the council by residents and other interested parties in response to the consultation which took place in July 2013. Councillors did not see anything other than summaries until March 2014 at the same meeting they were being asked to approve the local plan. Since it is the role of officers to advise and members to decide this seems inadequate / unsatisfactory. With such a process it is impossible for those who made representations to have confidence that due consideration was given to their concerns.

-Using the delay of consideration of representations as a tool to enable pre-empting of the local plan by enabling developers and landowners to submit applications for development of the southern areas to which numerous and serious objections and representations had been lodged and not resolved. Officers were afforded the ability to press on with master planning for the areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash in face of the objections.

-The consideration of new ONS statistics on population growth was delayed which has led to more land and housing being allocated than what is actually required. This will require the loss of more precious agricultural land than is really necessary).
Operating a regime where the threat of "pre-determination" was used in contravention of the spirit of the Localism Act as a means of (unintentionally or not) of quelling proper debate in council, and councillor involvement in community debate on planning issues. A culture was established which prevented the healthy debate of planning matters (in contravention of the provisions set out in the plain English Guide to the Localism Act 2011). The approach adopted by the Council to "predetermination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption. By doing so it is doubtful that it has complied with the letter of Section 25 of the Localities Act.
*In summary the Council has not followed the correct processes and has not properly engaged with its consultees and its community. It is Save Warwick's opinion that the Council has been reluctant to accept the role of community in the formulation of planning strategy, and in doing so may have opened itself to the possibility of legal challenge about the process it has followed.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66953

Derbyniwyd: 03/07/2014

Ymatebydd: Professor Bob Ireland

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

There have been serious shortcomings in the processes the Council has used in the development of the Plan. The Council has not properly considered the representations on the Local Plan submitted by residents and the community.

*The Plan does not comply in terms of the letter and spirit of the NPPF and the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
*The Council's approach to "pre-determination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption.

*It is the view of Save Warwick that the processes undertaken in the course of the preparation of the local plan by the District Council denied the public, councillors and other consultees genuine participation in the plan making process by:-
-Ignoring representations and / or delaying the council's responses to the representations until the plan had moved on irrevocably. In particular (by omission or neglect) the council's elected Members were not given the opportunity to give proper and timely consideration of the representations made to the council by residents and other interested parties in response to the consultation which took place in July 2013. Councillors did not see anything other than summaries until March 2014 at the same meeting they were being asked to approve the local plan. Since it is the role of officers to advise and members to decide this seems inadequate / unsatisfactory. With such a process it is impossible for those who made representations to have confidence that due consideration was given to their concerns.

-Using the delay of consideration of representations as a tool to enable pre-empting of the local plan by enabling developers and landowners to submit applications for development of the southern areas to which numerous and serious objections and representations had been lodged and not resolved. Officers were afforded the ability to press on with master planning for the areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash in face of the objections.

-The consideration of new ONS statistics on population growth was delayed which has led to more land and housing being allocated than what is actually required. This will require the loss of more precious agricultural land than is really necessary).
Operating a regime where the threat of "pre-determination" was used in contravention of the spirit of the Localism Act as a means of (unintentionally or not) of quelling proper debate in council, and councillor involvement in community debate on planning issues. A culture was established which prevented the healthy debate of planning matters (in contravention of the provisions set out in the plain English Guide to the Localism Act 2011). The approach adopted by the Council to "predetermination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption. By doing so it is doubtful that it has complied with the letter of Section 25 of the Localities Act.
*In summary the Council has not followed the correct processes and has not properly engaged with its consultees and its community. It is Save Warwick's opinion that the Council has been reluctant to accept the role of community in the formulation of planning strategy, and in doing so may have opened itself to the possibility of legal challenge about the process it has followed.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66961

Derbyniwyd: 03/07/2014

Ymatebydd: Christopher Paden

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

There have been serious shortcomings in the processes the Council has used in the development of the Plan. The Council has not properly considered the representations on the Local Plan submitted by residents and the community.

*The Plan does not comply in terms of the letter and spirit of the NPPF and the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
*The Council's approach to "pre-determination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption.

*It is the view of Save Warwick that the processes undertaken in the course of the preparation of the local plan by the District Council denied the public, councillors and other consultees genuine participation in the plan making process by:-
-Ignoring representations and / or delaying the council's responses to the representations until the plan had moved on irrevocably. In particular (by omission or neglect) the council's elected Members were not given the opportunity to give proper and timely consideration of the representations made to the council by residents and other interested parties in response to the consultation which took place in July 2013. Councillors did not see anything other than summaries until March 2014 at the same meeting they were being asked to approve the local plan. Since it is the role of officers to advise and members to decide this seems inadequate / unsatisfactory. With such a process it is impossible for those who made representations to have confidence that due consideration was given to their concerns.

-Using the delay of consideration of representations as a tool to enable pre-empting of the local plan by enabling developers and landowners to submit applications for development of the southern areas to which numerous and serious objections and representations had been lodged and not resolved. Officers were afforded the ability to press on with master planning for the areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash in face of the objections.

-The consideration of new ONS statistics on population growth was delayed which has led to more land and housing being allocated than what is actually required. This will require the loss of more precious agricultural land than is really necessary).
Operating a regime where the threat of "pre-determination" was used in contravention of the spirit of the Localism Act as a means of (unintentionally or not) of quelling proper debate in council, and councillor involvement in community debate on planning issues. A culture was established which prevented the healthy debate of planning matters (in contravention of the provisions set out in the plain English Guide to the Localism Act 2011). The approach adopted by the Council to "predetermination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption. By doing so it is doubtful that it has complied with the letter of Section 25 of the Localities Act.
*In summary the Council has not followed the correct processes and has not properly engaged with its consultees and its community. It is Save Warwick's opinion that the Council has been reluctant to accept the role of community in the formulation of planning strategy, and in doing so may have opened itself to the possibility of legal challenge about the process it has followed.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66969

Derbyniwyd: 03/07/2014

Ymatebydd: Elizabeth Cliffe

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

There have been serious shortcomings in the processes the Council has used in the development of the Plan. The Council has not properly considered the representations on the Local Plan submitted by residents and the community.

*The Plan does not comply in terms of the letter and spirit of the NPPF and the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
*The Council's approach to "pre-determination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption.

*It is the view of Save Warwick that the processes undertaken in the course of the preparation of the local plan by the District Council denied the public, councillors and other consultees genuine participation in the plan making process by:-
-Ignoring representations and / or delaying the council's responses to the representations until the plan had moved on irrevocably. In particular (by omission or neglect) the council's elected Members were not given the opportunity to give proper and timely consideration of the representations made to the council by residents and other interested parties in response to the consultation which took place in July 2013. Councillors did not see anything other than summaries until March 2014 at the same meeting they were being asked to approve the local plan. Since it is the role of officers to advise and members to decide this seems inadequate / unsatisfactory. With such a process it is impossible for those who made representations to have confidence that due consideration was given to their concerns.

-Using the delay of consideration of representations as a tool to enable pre-empting of the local plan by enabling developers and landowners to submit applications for development of the southern areas to which numerous and serious objections and representations had been lodged and not resolved. Officers were afforded the ability to press on with master planning for the areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash in face of the objections.

-The consideration of new ONS statistics on population growth was delayed which has led to more land and housing being allocated than what is actually required. This will require the loss of more precious agricultural land than is really necessary).
Operating a regime where the threat of "pre-determination" was used in contravention of the spirit of the Localism Act as a means of (unintentionally or not) of quelling proper debate in council, and councillor involvement in community debate on planning issues. A culture was established which prevented the healthy debate of planning matters (in contravention of the provisions set out in the plain English Guide to the Localism Act 2011). The approach adopted by the Council to "predetermination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption. By doing so it is doubtful that it has complied with the letter of Section 25 of the Localities Act.
*In summary the Council has not followed the correct processes and has not properly engaged with its consultees and its community. It is Save Warwick's opinion that the Council has been reluctant to accept the role of community in the formulation of planning strategy, and in doing so may have opened itself to the possibility of legal challenge about the process it has followed.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66977

Derbyniwyd: 03/07/2014

Ymatebydd: Mrs Kay Cugini

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

There have been serious shortcomings in the processes the Council has used in the development of the Plan. The Council has not properly considered the representations on the Local Plan submitted by residents and the community.

*The Plan does not comply in terms of the letter and spirit of the NPPF and the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
*The Council's approach to "pre-determination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption.

*It is the view of Save Warwick that the processes undertaken in the course of the preparation of the local plan by the District Council denied the public, councillors and other consultees genuine participation in the plan making process by:-
-Ignoring representations and / or delaying the council's responses to the representations until the plan had moved on irrevocably. In particular (by omission or neglect) the council's elected Members were not given the opportunity to give proper and timely consideration of the representations made to the council by residents and other interested parties in response to the consultation which took place in July 2013. Councillors did not see anything other than summaries until March 2014 at the same meeting they were being asked to approve the local plan. Since it is the role of officers to advise and members to decide this seems inadequate / unsatisfactory. With such a process it is impossible for those who made representations to have confidence that due consideration was given to their concerns.

-Using the delay of consideration of representations as a tool to enable pre-empting of the local plan by enabling developers and landowners to submit applications for development of the southern areas to which numerous and serious objections and representations had been lodged and not resolved. Officers were afforded the ability to press on with master planning for the areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash in face of the objections.

-The consideration of new ONS statistics on population growth was delayed which has led to more land and housing being allocated than what is actually required. This will require the loss of more precious agricultural land than is really necessary).
Operating a regime where the threat of "pre-determination" was used in contravention of the spirit of the Localism Act as a means of (unintentionally or not) of quelling proper debate in council, and councillor involvement in community debate on planning issues. A culture was established which prevented the healthy debate of planning matters (in contravention of the provisions set out in the plain English Guide to the Localism Act 2011). The approach adopted by the Council to "predetermination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption. By doing so it is doubtful that it has complied with the letter of Section 25 of the Localities Act.
*In summary the Council has not followed the correct processes and has not properly engaged with its consultees and its community. It is Save Warwick's opinion that the Council has been reluctant to accept the role of community in the formulation of planning strategy, and in doing so may have opened itself to the possibility of legal challenge about the process it has followed.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 66985

Derbyniwyd: 03/07/2014

Ymatebydd: Mr David Ramsbottom

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

There have been serious shortcomings in the processes the Council has used in the development of the Plan. The Council has not properly considered the representations on the Local Plan submitted by residents and the community.

*The Plan does not comply in terms of the letter and spirit of the NPPF and the Council's own Statement of Community Involvement (SCI)
*The Council's approach to "pre-determination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption.

*It is the view of Save Warwick that the processes undertaken in the course of the preparation of the local plan by the District Council denied the public, councillors and other consultees genuine participation in the plan making process by:-
-Ignoring representations and / or delaying the council's responses to the representations until the plan had moved on irrevocably. In particular (by omission or neglect) the council's elected Members were not given the opportunity to give proper and timely consideration of the representations made to the council by residents and other interested parties in response to the consultation which took place in July 2013. Councillors did not see anything other than summaries until March 2014 at the same meeting they were being asked to approve the local plan. Since it is the role of officers to advise and members to decide this seems inadequate / unsatisfactory. With such a process it is impossible for those who made representations to have confidence that due consideration was given to their concerns.

-Using the delay of consideration of representations as a tool to enable pre-empting of the local plan by enabling developers and landowners to submit applications for development of the southern areas to which numerous and serious objections and representations had been lodged and not resolved. Officers were afforded the ability to press on with master planning for the areas south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash in face of the objections.

-The consideration of new ONS statistics on population growth was delayed which has led to more land and housing being allocated than what is actually required. This will require the loss of more precious agricultural land than is really necessary).
Operating a regime where the threat of "pre-determination" was used in contravention of the spirit of the Localism Act as a means of (unintentionally or not) of quelling proper debate in council, and councillor involvement in community debate on planning issues. A culture was established which prevented the healthy debate of planning matters (in contravention of the provisions set out in the plain English Guide to the Localism Act 2011). The approach adopted by the Council to "predetermination" has inhibited the full and proper debate of the plan and the consultations involved in its adoption. By doing so it is doubtful that it has complied with the letter of Section 25 of the Localities Act.
*In summary the Council has not followed the correct processes and has not properly engaged with its consultees and its community. It is Save Warwick's opinion that the Council has been reluctant to accept the role of community in the formulation of planning strategy, and in doing so may have opened itself to the possibility of legal challenge about the process it has followed.