Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 68232

Derbyniwyd: 13/04/2016

Ymatebydd: Miss Carol Duckfield

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Nac Ydi

Where is the infrastructure plan to ensure that you can still move around Leamington/Warwick when all these new homes have been built?
Leamington is bound to the south/west by river, cannal and railway lines with only 4 routes to get over these obsticles - where is the plan to deal with the existing problems this causes before an additional 18k cars are added to the equation?
Where is the plan for a relief road to link Whitnash and Cubbington?

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 68410

Derbyniwyd: 19/04/2016

Ymatebydd: Leamington Society

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Ydi

Development of land off Europa Way is not sustainable or environmentally responsible. Road traffic increases in the town of Leamington and Warwick will increase to an unacceptable level

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 69050

Derbyniwyd: 21/04/2016

Ymatebydd: Environment Agency

We support the wording of the proposed modification.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 69169

Derbyniwyd: 22/04/2016

Ymatebydd: Lioncourt Strategic Land - Andy Faizey

Asiant : Savills

SUPPORT the requirement for a Development Brief for Kings Hill provided that a clear timetable and framework for this document can be agreed at the earliest opportunity.
It should be noted that there is already a consortium and associated agreements in place to ensure that a comprehensive, sustainable and deliverable development can be achieved at Kings Hill.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 69241

Derbyniwyd: 22/04/2016

Ymatebydd: CEG Steel/Pittaway

Asiant : Nexus Planning

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

Preparation of Development Brief including safeguarded land S1 is not a viable option and would be allocating / making land use assumptions on future policy. Could clearly be construed as going beyond the remit of supplementary planning documents or other guidance in detailing matters which should be reserved for local development documents.
With safeguarded land, not possible to determine wider community facility needs or impacts - Council cannot force owners to do so.
Development Brief required by Policy DS15 for this area would have no planning status, would lead to piecemeal development of a significant growth area.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 69340

Derbyniwyd: 15/04/2016

Ymatebydd: Crest Strategic Projects Limited

Asiant : d2planning

These representations should be read in conjunction with our representations in respect of Mod 14 in relation to Policy DS15 Comprehensive Development of Strategic Sites.
Only one landowner and one developer - enables the site to come forward without any issues regarding ownership. Vision Statement demonstrates how the land can be comprehensively developed with a potential early start on site.
Crest would work with the Planning Authority and all other interested parties to prepare and submit a planning application as soon as practicably possible following the completion of all of the relevant survey work which is already underway.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 69402

Derbyniwyd: 21/04/2016

Ymatebydd: Environment Agency

We have carefully reviewed the modifications proposed within the document based on the Planning Inspectors Interim Report and we find the it meets the tests of soundness:
We agree that the plan is positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy with the proposed modifications.
We have the following comments to make:
Modification 15
We support the wording of the proposed modification.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 69692

Derbyniwyd: 22/04/2016

Ymatebydd: Gleeson Developments

Asiant : Savills (L&P) Ltd

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

Policy as currently drafted requires development briefs for Kings Hill and Thickthorn/east of Kenilworth to be broadly compatible with each other in terms of infrastructure and commitment to sustainable growth. This requirement is unjustified and not effective. Each development area will be required to demonstrate sustainable development in isolation and to deliver appropriate infrastructure to mitigate its own impact. The requirement should not extend to consideration of infrastructure requirements on other sites. It is suggested that the wording of Policy DS15 is amended to require to have regard to the development briefs (where they exist) as set out below.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 69818

Derbyniwyd: 22/04/2016

Ymatebydd: Coventry and Warwickshire Local Enterprise Partnership (CWLEP)

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Heb nodi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

Policy requires comprehensive development to be articulated through "either a Development Brief or a Layout and Design statement" This would provide opportunity to plan areas for small scale employment use into the land use framework of some of these development areas.
The proposed table in Modification 14 to Policy DS15 should be further amended to make it clear that the schemes should (where appropriate) contain an explicit employment allocation identified by a specific gross floorspace allocation for employment uses .For example the large proposed schemes at Kings Hill and Westwood Heath would appear suitable to accommodate small scale employment opportunities.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 69835

Derbyniwyd: 22/04/2016

Ymatebydd: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Heb nodi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

2.66 This new paragraph is of concern. Leaving matters to landowners to work closely together to produce the most appropriate overall scheme for the site is unlikely to produce the result anticipated. Multi-headed leadership rarely works. The LPA should take the lead and co-ordinate the parts of the development to an overall masterplan agreed before the detail developer work commences.
2.68 Who judges that the strategic sites are being developed in a comprehensive manner? Left to the developers it will lead them to expect that their schemes will be nodded through, as costs come into consideration.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 69852

Derbyniwyd: 22/04/2016

Ymatebydd: Mrs J Mackenzie

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

Allocations contrary to NPPF requirement to maintain separation, prevent coalescence
Numbers based on Coventry requirements not approved in local plan, revised before 2017?
No critical examination of claims that land unavailable -areas of Coventry green belt could be developed with less impact
Provision of land to meet Coventry's overspill contrary to NPPF - require sub-regional SA to be valid
How do proposals fit with neighbouring development
No consultation undertaken with parish councils before decisions made
MoU providing additional housing for Combined Authority circumvents democratic process, NPPF
Impact of proposals at Thickthorn and Kings Hill next to over-capacity A46 not considered

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 69965

Derbyniwyd: 22/04/2016

Ymatebydd: Gallagher Estates

Asiant : Pegasus Group

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi

Cadarn? Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

Outline planning permission has already been granted on the eastern part of the H46A allocation within the control of Gallagher Estates and not on the land to the west. As such it is considered that additional wording should be added to Policy DS15 which acknowledges that planning permission has been secured on part of H46A and which requires the remainder of the site, which does not have the benefit of planning permission, to come forward in line with this outline approval.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 70300

Derbyniwyd: 23/04/2016

Ymatebydd: Hazel and Robin Fryer

Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi

Cadarn? Nac Ydi

Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi

Most of the modified submission relates to increasing the number of new houses and proposes building a major housing development in the narrow greenbelt between Kenilworth-Stoneleigh and Coventry. This is contrary to the NPPF requirements in Paragraph 80 "To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas." "To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another"; therefore the proposed modified Local Plan is unsound.