See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

Consultation on Revisions to Warwick DC Local Plan
I am writing in response to the consultation on the revisions to the Local Plan which Warwick District Council is currently proposing. Specifically, I wish to object to the revised proposals for Hampton Magna, namely the increase in the density of housing on land to the south of Arras Boulevard, and the allocation of land south of Lloyd Close for 115 houses.
My objection addresses three issues:-
Whether the plan is legally compliant.
Whether the proposals are sustainable in the context of the district's needs
Whether there are alternatives which would better meet the needs.
There are a number of issues which potentially question whether the plan is legally compliant.
The change to the plan for Hampton Magna more than doubles the amount of housing proposed. As a consequence, the plan constitutes a major revision to the proposals. On the grounds of reasonableness, an issue governed by the Wednesbury principle, and indeed under the district council's own policies on communicating with local communities, there should have been consultation on the plan with Budbrooke Parish Council and the local community. There was none in advance of the proposals being published and agreed for consultation. Moreover, the documentation relating to the district council decision was not published until the latest possible date for the consultation, and it is in a form which is unintelligible to a layman.
Secondly, the plan considers proposals for Hampton Magna and Hatton Park separately. Other than a small local shop, there are no facilities in Hatton Park, and residents there use the facilities (school, GP surgery, etc.) in Hampton Magna. The impact of development in both Hampton Magna and Hatton Park should have been considered jointly, and has not been.
Thirdly, at a public meeting, residents of Hampton Magna were informed that the plan has been prepared only on the basis of taking account of land available for sale. This means that a substantial number of sites, indeed most sites, have simply not been considered. Given that a compulsory purchase process takes eighteen months typically, and the plan is for the period up to 2029, this again has to be of questionable legality in a Wednesbury context.
Finally, the proposals for Hampton Magna are all on land currently delegated as greenbelt. Greenbelt development is permitted in situations where an exceptional need is demonstrated. The revised local plan over-programmes the amount of housing required in the district by 800. This would tend to indicate that far from an exceptional need for greenbelt development, for the development of 800 properties there is, in fact, no need whatsoever. The threshold for exceptional need cannot, therefore, be met.
In summary, for the foregoing reasons, there is a significant question of whether the local plan is legally compliant, and I would contend that it is not.
The issue of sustainability relates to a number of factors;
i) whether infrastructure is sound and adequate and has both the capacity and capability to absorb additional load;
ii) whether there is adequate access to employment in a way which does not impact on the environment unduly detrimentally;
iii) whether it meets the district's housing needs in a reasonable way.
On the first of these issues, Hampton Magna has a range of community facilities, a school, a shop with post office, a beauty salon, and coffee shop, a public house and a GP surgery. These facilities are also extensively used by residents of Hatton Park which has only a small shop.
The school has room on site to expand, but parking around the school is a major issue, i.e. it is unsafe, and there is no possibility of sensibly absorbing the additional Hampton Magna and Hatton Park students. Other respondents have, I understand, included photographs of the current parking problems.
The GP surgery does not have room to expand in size, and already suffers from significant parking problems, with a very small number of parking spaces.
The most significant infrastructure constraint is provided by the roads into the village, all of which have severe restrictions. Ugly Bridge Road and Old Budbrooke Road have height restrictions. Both of these and Woodway have weight restrictions (which would have significant implications for developers' heavy traffic). All roads into the village are single lane at some point along their length (although Woodway purports to be two-way, which it is not). A study for the district council demonstrated that with only an additional 130 vehicles the road capacity would be exceeded in the morning rush hour, leading to routine traffic hold-ups. The revised proposal worsens this. There are no road proposals in the parish which would alleviate this (a proposed development at the A46 roundabout would have no effect on the parish roads. Even disregarding other impacts of the development, simply from a transportation perspective, any development on the scale proposed would require new access roads into the village from either the Henley road or the A46 directly.
Hampton Magna has had longstanding problems with its sewerage and drainage systems (the Parish Council have regularly met STWA and local councils about the issues). These would require major upgrading to cope with development on the scale now proposed.
Air quality in the village is poor. The revision to the plan is being proposed to take account of an additional housing need falling into the district from a corresponding shortfall in Coventry. It is, therefore, entirely likely that a reasonable proportion of new residents would have Coventry as their place of work. Despite Hampton Magna having excellent rail links, and some local bus services, travelling to Coventry by public transport would mean journeys in excess of an hour. In all likelihood, as a consequence, car usage would increase significantly in the village, further degrading air quality.
The proposed density of development is different to that currently found within the village, which is relatively low density with plenty of green areas and open spaces. Higher density development would change the intrinsic character of what is, despite it's relatively young age, a very rural village.
The proposal for Lloyd Close would also degrade the amenities of the village in two ways. Firstly, and recognising that no individual has a right to a view, the view across the fields to the south of Lloyd Close is an important public amenity, in that there are very few sites (the proposed area of development and Hampton on the Hill only, in all likelihood) where both of the historically important Warwick North and South Gates (St Mary's Church and Warwick Castle) can be seen together. As such, this is an important vista which should materially affect whether the exceptional use of a greenfield site can be considered in this context. Warwick has had a history of losing significant and important views (for example, through the development of the County Council's Barrack Street building), and it would be tragic to lose this as a public amenity. Secondly, the site, which has a footpath (dating back several hundred years) running across it, is used daily by walkers and dog walkers. Bats, a protected species, have also been reported on this site, and consequently a full survey should have been carried out.
The question of how the employment of incoming residents would impact on the village is an important one. There are very limited employment opportunities within the village. Good rail links exist to Birmingham and London, and intermediate stations, but, as stated earlier, public transport links to Coventry are very poor, and road links are along already heavily congested roads. Additionally, while rail links are good, parking at Warwick Parkway already operates at or near capacity, and four extensions to parking provision have already had to be made, with limited potential for further expansion. New residents from both Hampton Magna and Hatton Park would place additional demands on this parking.
Finally, an important consideration is whether the revised proposals meet the identified needs in the most appropriate way. A number of issues are relevant here.
As the additional need derives from a shortfall of housing in Coventry, having the largest proportionate increase in housing in a village 11.8 miles from Coventry, and without adequate public transport links to the city, is perverse.
The presumption of only using land available for sale was coupled with a wholly unreasonably short period for vendors to notify the Council of land availability (which was, I believe, only fifteen days) means that many potentially suitable sites have simply not been considered.
There is a Warwickshire village, Bubbenhall, which is much closer to Coventry (only 6.7miles), with similar facilities to Hampton Magna (and considerably better facilities than Hatton Park), and with considerably better transport links to Coventry, which has been excluded from consideration as a growth village, by the adoption of an arbitrary cut-off by the district council in a subjectively scored assessment matrix. This is unreasonable, and Bubbenhall should be reconsidered as a growth village.
If development at the revised level is required in Warwick, there are also freestanding greenfield sites (including a large site opposite Ajax football club on the Henley Road, which should have merited consideration for the development of a wholly new village (as Hampton Magna and Hatton Park were when they were developed). This would provide a number of advantages:-
The amenity of existing villages would be substantially unaffected.
The costs of creating the wholly new infrastructure required for a new village are much more readily determinable, meaning that the costs can be much more readily recovered through s106 agreements with developers, rightly limiting the costs falling on the public purse. Writing as a retired local authority treasurer, it is notoriously difficult to recover from developers anything like the full cost of enhancements to existing infrastructure for smaller scale developments.
A new development would much more clearly meet the threshold for exceptional development in the greenbelt, albeit subject to my earlier comment about whether any over-programming of provision could be considered legally to meet this threshold.
In summary, there are significant question marks about whether Warwick District Council's revised plan is legally compliant. There are further significant concerns about the sustainability of the revised proposals, and whether they provide for the most appropriate way of meeting the identified housing need for the district and the overspill need from Coventry. My conclusion would be that they do not.

See attached

We act for the owners of the land edged red on the attached plan.

We submit that this land should be added to the proposed employment area (DS9) as a result of the additional housing numbers now set out in the Draft Plan, and the subsequent knock-on effect on the need for more employment land.

The proposed site can be developed either as an extension to the existing proposed allocation or in isolation. The land is deliverable.

For employment purposes the site is ideally located just off Junction 15 M40 and as a result additional traffic (particularly HGV) can be kept away from Warwick Town Centre and the other congested roads such as Europa Way.

A roundabout access has been designed on my clients land as shown attached and which will improve the current junction of Stratford Road and Old Stratford Road.

See attached Map

See attached

see attached

See attached

See attached

OLD MILVERTON LANE,
LEAMINGTON SPA
The following representations are submitted on behalf of our client Nuffield
Health. They relate to the proposed modifications 10, 14 and 22 to the Local
Plan.
Modifications 10 and 14 relate to the proposed strategic urban extension and
housing allocation H44 which are adjacent to the Nuffield Health Warwickshire
Hospital ('the hospital'). Modification 22 safeguards a site (S2) in the Green Belt
adjacent to proposed housing allocation H44 for development in the future.
The proposed allocation and designation will significantly change the context of
the hospital.
These representations request:
* The supporting text to Policy DS15 and / or Policy BE2 acknowledges the
proximity of H44 and S2 to the hospital and require any future proposal (ie a
Development Brief and / or a full/outline planning application) to demonstrate
that the amenity and operations of the hospital are not adversely effected;
and
* The hospital site is released from the Green Belt as it will no longer serve
any of the purposes of the Green Belt.
These further modifications will ensure the Local Plan is sound, consistent with
national policy, in particular paragraphs 83 - 85 of the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) and justified.
Site Context
The hospital is located to the north of Leamington Spa and is situated at the
roundabout connecting Old Milverton Lane, Stoneleigh Road and Kenilworth
Road (A452). The hospital comprises two - three storey buildings with surface
car parking located to the north and south of the main hospital buildings. The
site adjoins the proposed allocation H44 which is located to the south.
The site has mature trees along the northern, eastern and southern site
boundary which are subject to a Tree Preservation Order. Vehicular access to
the hospital is from Old Milverton Lane and is situated opposite an 80 bed care
home which was approved under application ref: W/11/1670. The Woodland
Grange Conference and Training Centre is located to the north west of the site
and there is an office complex located to the north east.
There are no neighbouring towns to the immediate north of Leamington Spa.
Proposed Strategic Urban Extension and Housing H44
The hospital cares for approximately 40,000 patients each year. It is a key
employer in the area and provides valuable medical care for local residents.
We note modification 14 states Land North of Milverton has potential for:
"Employment land; potential park and ride, primary school; land/ contribution for
medical centre, community facilities; potential for new rail station (subject to
viability)"
Modification 10 highlights that the site has an estimated capacity for 250
dwellings but this could increase to 1,315 dwellings in the overall urban
extension.
Development of this scale and type has potential to adversely affect the amenity
of patients and staff in the hospital. It is requested that the supporting text to
policies DS11 (Allocated Housing Sites) and DS15 (Comprehensive
Development of Strategic Sites) acknowledge the hospital's proximity to
proposed allocation H44 and requires any proposed development scheme to
demonstrate it will not harm the hospital's amenity or hinder its operations.
Green Belt Release
Policy context
Paragraph 80 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the
five purposes of Green Belt:
1. To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
2. To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
3. To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
4. To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
5. To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and
other urban land.
Paragraph 83 requires Green Belt boundaries to be established in their Local
Plans and states:
"Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional
circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. At that time,
authorities should consider the Green Belt boundaries having regard to their
intended permanence in the long term, so that they should be capable of
enduring beyond the plan period." (Emphasis added)
Paragraph 84 advises how Green Belt boundaries should be reviewed:
"When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries local planning authorities
should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of
development. They should consider the consequences for sustainable
development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green
Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or
towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary."
Paragraph 85 states, when defining boundaries, local planning authorities
should meet a number of criteria including the following:
* Ensure consistency with the Local Plan strategy for meeting identified
requirements for sustainable development;
* Not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open;
* Satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at
the end of the development plan period; and
* Define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily
recognisable and likely to be permanent.
Analysis
The proposed modifications 10, 14 and 22 will significantly alter the context of
the hospital site and it will no longer serve any of the purposes of Green Belt.
The site will be adjacent an strategic urban extension and can no longer play a
role in preventing sprawl and encroachment into the countryside.
Old Milverton Lane and Kenilworth Road provide a logical physical boundary to
the Green Belt to the north of Milverton. As the hospital site is already largely
developed it is no longer necessary to include this site with the Green Belt.
The hospital site comprises approximately 2ha and is adjacent the proposed
strategic urban extension and safeguarded area which comprise 80 ha. The
natural boundary of the strategic urban extension and adjoining Green Belt to
the north is the railway line to the west, Sandy Lane and Old Milverton Lane to
the north and Kenilworth Road to the east. However, the hospital site is
currently an anomaly in this logical Green Belt boundary as the proposed
boundary has not taken into account the change in context as a result of the
proposed modifications. The proposed modifications and the resultant Green
Belt boundary therefore fail to take account of paragraphs 83 - 85 of the NPPF.
The site is subject to Tree Preservation Orders which will help maintain the
mature boundary. This will ensure the trees screen any development on the site
and wider urban extension in views from the north. However it is considered
that as the site is largely developed it is no longer necessary to keep it open
and retained in the Green Belt particularly in the context of the proposed
modifications.
We note the Joint Green Belt Study carried out in 2009 states this area
including the hospital (ie area WL 6a / 6b) as 'mid sensitive' and being of
medium landscape value but worthy of further detailed study.
The Joint Green Belt Study (June 2015) assessed Parcel R1 which includes the
hospital against the five purposes of Green Belt. The evidence highlights that
the hospital site plays a limited role in the Green Belt. In relation to Purpose 1 it
states:
"All the development within the parcel is concentrated in the northern corner of
the parcel. While the remaining areas of the parcel are open and free from
development, the openness of the northern corner has been compromised by
several large buildings, including Oak Medical Hospital (Warwickshire Nuffield)
and Blackdown Clinic". (Emphasis added)
In relation to Purpose 3 it states:
"All the development within the parcel is concentrated in the northern corner of
the parcel. While the remaining areas of the parcel retain the character of
countryside, are open and free from development, the areas around the Oak
Medical Hospital (Warwickshire Nuffield) and Blackdown Clinic are less open
and somewhat urbanised by the areas of hardstanding and large buildings
associated with these developments". (Emphasis added)
Therefore, in order to ensure the Local Plan is sound, consistent with national
policy and based on the most appropriate strategy and evidence it is requested
the hospital is released from the Green Belt.

see attached

see attached

see attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

1. Background
1.1 Our clients, the Burman family, are the freehold owners of the land edged red on the plan attached
1.2 We have previously made representations on the emerging Warwick District Local Plan on behalf of the Burman family
1.3 The proposals for additional Main Modifications to this District Local Plan, were issued dated January 2016, and for which there is a closing date of Friday 22 April 2016 (by 4:45pm) for receipt by Warwick DC of representations.
1.4 We set out below those representations
2. Representations - Support
Mod 16, para 2.81 and Mod 19 Policies Map
2.1.1 Our clients support, in principle, the release of their land edged red for housing
Identified as H53 'Hatton Park, Brownley Green Lane' for an estimated 55 dwellings (page 34 of the Table of Proposed Modifications)
2.1.2 If formally Adopted our Clients will immediately seek to bring the land forward for development

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached