BASE HEADER
Mod 16 - para 2.81
Gwrthwynebu
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69147
Derbyniwyd: 19/04/2016
Ymatebydd: Mrs. Norma Walker
Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Heb nodi
Cadarn? Nac Ydi
Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi
Exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated to support loss of high value green belt.
As development caters for Coventry's unmet housing need, sustainable sites nearer to Coventry should be used.
Site will generate further congestion and road construction and people will not want to live here and work in Coventry.
Sites south of Coventry with lower green belt value should be used.
Loss of open space between Leamington and Coventry.
Loss of landscape amenity.
Loss of recreational amenity.
Loss of productive farmland.
Loss of wildlife habitat.
See attached
Cefnogi
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69170
Derbyniwyd: 22/04/2016
Ymatebydd: Lioncourt Strategic Land - Andy Faizey
Asiant : Savills
SUPPORT the removal of land from the Green Belt at Kings Hill
see attached
Gwrthwynebu
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69187
Derbyniwyd: 18/04/2016
Ymatebydd: Hatton Park Residents Association
Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi
Cadarn? Nac Ydi
Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi
Green belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, which do not occur here
No housing need demonstrated that would justify loss of green belt
See attached
Gwrthwynebu
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69216
Derbyniwyd: 22/04/2016
Ymatebydd: Barwood Development Securities Ltd
Asiant : HOW Planning LLP
Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi
Cadarn? Nac Ydi
Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi
Approach taken by the Council is not justified. The release of Green Belt land is based on no and, at fundamentally, flawed evidence. The evidence published alongside the Local Plan Proposed Modifications does not provide a robust evidence base to justify the quantum of Green Belt to be released or the sites selection for release.
Policy DS19, as modified, is unsound as the approach is not justified. Specifically, sites on edge of Coventry should not be carried forward and the requirement of 2,300 dwellings should be accommodated elsewhere in the district.
see attached
Gwrthwynebu
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69238
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
Support Council's findings that site S1 fails to adequately fulfil the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. However, consider that site S1 should be identified as an allocation of up to 900 dwellings, rather than safeguarded. This, in combination with site allocation H42, would enable the comprehensive planning of a development for circa 1,500 dwellings in the Westwood Heath area. Furthermore, it would ensure that a more successful and integrated masterplan is developed and that on and off site infrastructure is appropriately planned.
see attached
Gwrthwynebu
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69248
Derbyniwyd: 22/04/2016
Ymatebydd: Taylor Wimpey
Asiant : Barton Willmore
Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi
Cadarn? Nac Ydi
Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi
HAMPTON MAGNA
We consider that the site in control of Taylor Wimpey at Old Budbrooke Road offers the opportunity for release of Green Belt to provide for additional sustainable housing growth throughout the Plan period.
We write on behalf of Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd in respect of their land interests on land at Old Budbrooke Road, Hampton Magna. A site location plan is enclosed with these representations at Appendix 1 alongside a leaflet detailing the development proposals for the Site at Appendix 2.
The site is not part of a proposed allocation, with sites H27 (130 dwellings) and H51 (115 dwellings) being proposed for allocation in Hampton Magna. However, for the reasons set out below, we consider that given its sustainable location and proximity to services and facilities within the village the land in the control of Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd provides a better option for sustainably meeting the needs of Hampton Magna in the future and is capable of delivering circa 140 dwellings.
The Site occupies a sustainable location situated to the north-east of Hampton Magna. It is bordered to the south by residential development, to the west by Old Budbrooke Road, to the north by a farm track and then the Warwick Parkway railway station and to the east by Stanks Farm building and a disused sewage works. The boundaries to the site form logical and defensible boundaries and the site offers the opportunity to add sensibly to the built form of the village. The site would offer good pedestrian linkages, particularly to the railway station to the north of the site, along with the provision of substantial areas of public open space and landscape buffers to the north and south of the site.
In comparison to the proposed allocations within Hampton Magna, the site offers logical access direct from the Old Budbrooke Road, whereas the proposed allocations offer little opportunity for direct access, particularly for construction other than through the centre of the village itself. Furthermore, we consider that the landscape impact of the proposals to the south of the village will be greater as they benefit from inferior boundaries and levels of containment.
In relation to this Site, we comment Main Modifications as follows:
Mod 4 - Policy DS6
Whilst we are generally supportive of the Council's approach to increasing the housing target, taking account of unmet needs to assist the HMA in meeting the requirements of
24707/A3/VL/RC/lfw 2 22nd April 2016
the NPPF and satisfying the Duty -to-Cooperate, we remain concerned that the level of uplift at the HMA and District levels is insufficient.
We enclose at Appendix 3 a critique of the Council's position on meeting housing needs across the HMA.
At this time, we are of the view that the housing requirement for the HMA over the period (2011-2031) should be a minimum of 100,200 dwellings (5,010 dpa), with our updated and preferred methodology increasing this to 126,000 (6,300 dpa).
For Warwick District we consider that the OAN is a minimum of 20,800 dwellings (1,040 dpa), with our updated and preferred methodology increasing this to 23,400 dwellings (1,170 dpa).
The figures for Warwick do not take account of any need to redistribute housing within the HMA based on the Duty-to-Cooperate and Local Authorities, such as Coventry City, being unable to meet their own housing needs.
Mod 6 - Policy DS7
Notwithstanding our response to Mod 4, and the contention that the housing requirement should be increased further to 23,400 dwellings (1,170 dpa) for Warwick District over the period 2011- 2031 (not accounting for unmet needs within the Coventry HMA), we wish to comment on the amended Policy DS7, which sets out how the housing requirement will be met.
The Council has proposed to allow for the delivery of an additional 811 dwellings over and above the proposed requirement of 16,766 dwellings for the Plan period (2011- 2029). Regardless of any changes to the housing requirement, we support the approach of the Council in seeking to allocate additional land; as such an approach adds significantly to the soundness of the Council's approach by providing a positively prepared Plan that will be more effective in delivering the minimum housing needs of the area, and is flexible to changing demands over the Plan period.
The inclusion of safeguarded land will also play a key role in achieving these outcomes, which is supported in the NPPF at paragraph 14 - where Councils are asked to provide sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change in meeting OAN.
The proposed approach to allocations and safeguarding land will also assist the Council in demonstrating that they have been both aspirational and realistic in progressing the Plan in accordance with paragraph 154 of the NPPF; with the slight overprovision allowing for any slippages in the delivery of the strategic sites within the District - which may be particularly helpful given the proximity of a number of allocations to the south of Warwick/Leamington Spa - and maximising the chance of a five year housing land supply being demonstrable over the Plan period.
Mod 7 - Para's 2.21 to 2.24
Further to our suggestion for the provision of appropriate flexibility in the Plan, we note the housing trajectory that sits behind Policy DS7, which depicts the timeline for the delivery of housing over the Plan period.
The trajectory is seeking a sharp increase, from circa 850 forecast completions in 2015/16 to a minimum of circa 1,400 dpa over the period 2017/18 - 2022/23.
Such an increase is considerable, and to maximise the chances of this being delivered then the Council will require as many deliverable sites as possible to come forward to help meet this need.
24707/A3/VL/RC/lfw 3 22nd April 2016
We would therefore be supportive of land being allocated at Old Budbrooke Road in Hampton Magna for housing development, which is capable of early delivery and would assist in meeting its OAHN.
Mod 9 - Para's 2.37 and 2.38
We have no specific comments to make, other than to agree with the justification for releasing sites from the Green Belt to meet the needs of the Housing Market Area.
Furthermore, we note that the NPPF requires at paragraph 47 for the needs of the HMA to be met, however, how this is distributed across the District is a matter of planning judgement for the Council taking account of a number of considerations. As an example, elsewhere in the HMA it can be seen that North Warwickshire has adopted a Sound Plan in accordance with the NPPF that includes within it 500 dwellings to meet the needs of Tamworth without any sites immediately adjacent to the urban area from which unmet needs are originating.
Consequently, we consider that paragraph 2.38 should be amended to simply state:
'In selecting sites on the edge of urban areas, non‐Green Belt sites are‐ favoured over Green Belt sites where possible. However, where there are no suitable non Green Belt alternatives to meet an identified need, sites are removed from the Green Belt to enable development to take place which will help to meet the needs of the Housing Market Area. This applies to land to meet the needs of Coventry, Leamington, Kenilworth, some of the villages and land on the edge of Lillington to assist in the regeneration of the area.' (added / deleted)
Mods 10 and 11 - Policy DS11 and Para's 2.41 to 2.53
We disagree with the proposed allocations made in Hampton Magna, as we consider that the land under the control of Taylor Wimpey at Old Budbrooke Road is superior and offers a more sustainable and logical extension to the settlement of Hampton Magna.
We have commented previously on the suitability of the Site to deliver residential dwellings and enclose a leaflet which demonstrates how the Site could sensible be delivered (Appendix 2), as well as technical notes updating the position in relation to ecology/archaeology/agriculture and highways/drainage at Appendix 4 and 5 respectively.
Given the above, we object to the Plan on the basis that this Site is not included within it, either instead of or alongside H27 and H51.
Indeed, we note that the update to the Landscape Sensitivity and Ecological & Geological Study (Landscape Assessment Update - 2014) upgraded the classification of part of Site H27 to a 'High-medium' landscape sensitivity to residential development as opposed to a 'High' sensitivity. We would however point out that there is no evidence or justification behind this alteration as the only focus was around land to the east of Hampton Magna under reference HM_05. Site H51 remains assessed as having 'High' landscape sensitivity.
In addition we would add that Taylor Wimpey's site is subject to 'High -medium' landscape sensitivity to residential development and the assessment set out that "...there is potential for a small amount [of development] between the existing settlement edge along Blandford Way/Arras Boulevard/Gould Road and Stanks Farm. However, this would need to include a substantial landscape buffer in order to strengthen the green corridor along the railway and prevent any physical or visual link to Warwick..." As can be seen in Appendix 2, we note are aware of the need to provide appropriate landscaping and have incorporated this in to the proposals for the Site from an early stage.
We therefore consider that the land in the control of Taylor Wimpey offers a suitable and preferable extension Hampton Magna.
24707/A3/VL/RC/lfw 4 22nd April 2016
Mod 16 - Para 2.81
As set out previously we consider that the site offers the opportunity for release of Green Belt to provide for additional sustainable housing growth throughout the Plan period.
In 2015, the Council undertook a review of the Joint Green Belt Study (Parcel WA2) which also includes the proposed allocations of Sites H27 and H51. The parcel scored 15/20 in this assessment.
However, the scale of the parcel did not allow for an accurate assessment of this Site and thus we have prepared our own Landscape and Visual Appraisal of the Site - which respects the boundaries of the Site. This is enclosed at Appendix 6 and summarises that the Site is "...well related to the existing housing area and benefit from robust boundaries, including Old Budbrooke Road, the railway line and the A46 Warwick Bypass... subject to the sensitive design, detailing and layout, development at the Site would not result in urban sprawl; nor represent an encroachment into the wider countryside; it would not impact on local heritage assets; nor would it materially contribute to the coalescence with the neighbouring settlement at Warwick. Accordingly, development could be accommodated without resulting in significant landscape and visual effects, or offending the objectives of Green Belt policy."
Mod 20 - Policy DS NEW 1 Directions for Growth South of Coventry
In relation to this Policy, we wish to support the Council in their approach to capping of the assumed delivery of the Westwood Heath and Kings Hill sites due to infrastructure and delivery rates respectively.
It is important in meeting the needs of the HMA that the Council are realistic in this regard in order to ensure that the Plan is effective and deliverable by 2029.
Given the timescales for adoption of the Plan and progressing a site of the scale of Kings Hill, 1,800 dwellings by 2029 should be considered aspirational - and in order to ensure that the Plan remains realistic, consider that no uplift to this figure is appropriate. Indeed, the Council should ensure that they are fully confident of the build rates suggested being delivered before progressing the Plan.
Conclusion
We trust that you will take these comments are helpful in progressing the Plan. Should you require any further information, do not hesitate to contact me as per the details on this letter.
Cefnogi
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69262
Derbyniwyd: 22/04/2016
Ymatebydd: landowners of the original site H19
Asiant : Sworders
The landowners of the northern part of the site have no objection to the extension of the site to incorporate neighbouring land to the south. There is an agreed understanding between the landowners as to how the land allocation could be brought forward promptly, following release from the Green Belt.
See attached
Gwrthwynebu
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69278
Derbyniwyd: 22/04/2016
Ymatebydd: Mr Edward Walpole-Brown
Asiant : Brown and Co
Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi
Cadarn? Nac Ydi
Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi
We maintain our objection up to the allocation of Hatton Park Sites H28 and H53 and their removal from the Green Belt.
See attached
Gwrthwynebu
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69300
Derbyniwyd: 13/04/2016
Ymatebydd: Dan Robbins
Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi
Cadarn? Nac Ydi
Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi
Object to proposals: -
- No exceptional circumstances exist to justify removal of land at old Milverton from green belt.
- contrary to national and government policy
- alternative non-green belt sites available
- Kings Hill a better site than Milverton
- will generate additional traffic and congestion
- adverse impacts on environment, character and appearance of area
- adverse impact on local facilities and services
- loss of recreational amenity
- WDC has sufficient five-year supply of housing land
- in breach of human rights legislation
See uploaded attachment
Gwrthwynebu
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69313
Derbyniwyd: 13/04/2016
Ymatebydd: Mrs. Carol Andrews
Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi
Cadarn? Nac Ydi
Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi
Why are we providing land in Milverton to Coventry when my daughter moved to Coventry new build because she and her husband could not afford to buy in this area?
see attached
Gwrthwynebu
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69318
Derbyniwyd: 12/04/2016
Ymatebydd: Mr M J Birch
Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi
Cadarn? Nac Ydi
Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi
Object to H44: -
- exceptional circumstances required by NPPF do not exist to remove land from green belt
- sustainable sites closer to Coventry that should be used in preference to this one
- alternative sites will reduce commuting, congestion and road construction
- loss of productive farmland
- loss of wildlife habitat
- unsustainable park and ride scheme
See attached
Gwrthwynebu
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69319
Derbyniwyd: 04/04/2016
Ymatebydd: Miss Ruth Buckley
Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi
Cadarn? Nac Ydi
Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi
Object to proposals: -
- WDC cannot demonstrate exceptional circumstances for removing land from green belt required by NPPF
- removal of this land would contravene guidance as land of lower value adjacent to Coventry should be used
See attached
Gwrthwynebu
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69320
Derbyniwyd: 14/04/2016
Ymatebydd: Mr. & Mrs. Douglas & Valerie Burcham
Nifer y bobl: 2
Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi
Cadarn? Nac Ydi
Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi
Object to H44: -
- no evidence of people in Coventry wanting to live in Leamington
- no evidence of demand analysis
- commuting increases congestion
- appropriate sites closer to Coventry
- reuse brownfield sites
- access constrained by congestion on A452, A445; railway
- hard surfaces increase flooding risk
- three alternatives minimise congestion - Thickthorn; between Hatton and A46; north of A46 / SE of A429 junction.
- loss of recreational amenity
- unsustainable park and ride
- "safeguarding" a misnomer; green belt not being preserved
- railway station unfeasible
- lack of detail on sewerage capacity
See attached
Gwrthwynebu
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69322
Derbyniwyd: 06/04/2016
Ymatebydd: Mr. Michael Chandler
Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi
Cadarn? Nac Ydi
Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi
Exceptional circumstances for the removal of land north of Milverton from the green belt have not been demonstrated. There are sustainable sites closer to Coventry which have lower green belt value. Old Milverton Lane is not able to support the extra vehicles. people will not use the park and ride, it will add to congestion and pollution.
See attached
Gwrthwynebu
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69323
Derbyniwyd: 12/04/2016
Ymatebydd: Mr Graham Cooper
Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi
Cadarn? Nac Ydi
Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi
The exceptional circumstances to remove the land north of Milverton from the green belt have not been demonstrated. There are sustainable sites closer to Coventry which have lower green belt value which are better suited to meeting Coventry's needs. Sites closer to Coventry will reduce unnecessary commuting, congestion, and additional road construction. There are sites of lower green belt value closer to Coventry.
See attached
Gwrthwynebu
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69328
Derbyniwyd: 06/04/2016
Ymatebydd: Mr. Paul Formby
Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi
Cadarn? Nac Ydi
Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi
The proposed park and ride is located too close to Leamington and could then also serve Coventry and Warwick. Further most of the traffic is heading to employment and retail areas south of Warwick
See attached
Gwrthwynebu
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69329
Derbyniwyd: 09/04/2016
Ymatebydd: Mrs. Carmen Formby
Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi
Cadarn? Nac Ydi
Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi
The proposed park and ride is located too close to Leamington and could then also serve Coventry and Warwick. Further most of the traffic is heading to employment and retail areas south of Warwick
See attached
Gwrthwynebu
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69333
Derbyniwyd: 13/04/2016
Ymatebydd: Barbara Hingley
Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi
Cadarn? Nac Ydi
Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi
Exceptional circumstances for the removal of land north of Milverton from the green belt have not been demonstrated. There are sustainable sites closer to Coventry which have lower green belt value. Productive farmland will be lost along with important habitats and an area which is used for recreation. the green lung between Kenilworth and Leamington will be reduced, leading a coalescence of the two towns. Use of sites closer to Coventry will reduce unnecessary commuting, road congestion and pollution.
the park and ride is unlikely to be viable and will not be convenient as it won't have a dedicated bus service. There is also adequate parking in Leamington and the site is located too close to the town. Further the major employers are south of the towns.
See attached
Gwrthwynebu
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69335
Derbyniwyd: 12/04/2016
Ymatebydd: Alan Hingley
Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi
Cadarn? Nac Ydi
Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Nac Ydi
Exceptional circumstances for the removal of land north of Milverton from the green belt have not been demonstrated. There are sustainable sites closer to Coventry which have lower green belt value. Productive farmland will be lost along with important habitats and an area which is used for recreation. the green lung between Kenilworth and Leamington will be reduced, leading a coalescence of the two towns. Use of sites closer to Coventry will reduce unnecessary commuting, road congestion and pollution.
the park and ride is unlikely to be viabale and will not be convenient as it won't have a dedicated bus service. There is also adequate parking in Leamington and the site is located too close to the town. Further the major employers are south of the towns.
See attached
Gwrthwynebu
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69337
Derbyniwyd: 16/04/2016
Ymatebydd: Philip Hodgkinson
Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Heb nodi
Cadarn? Nac Ydi
Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi
Exceptional circumstances for the removal of land north of Milverton from the green belt have not been demonstrated.
There are sustainable sites closer to Coventry which have lower green belt value. Productive farmland will be lost along with important habitats and an area which is used for recreation. The park and ride scheme will not work as most employment is south of the towns; there is plenty of parking in Leamington, and there will be no dedicated buses.
See attached
Gwrthwynebu
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69339
Derbyniwyd: 14/04/2016
Ymatebydd: Mr. Eric Hucks
Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi
Cadarn? Nac Ydi
Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi
Exceptional circumstances for the removal of land north of Milverton from the green belt have not been demonstrated.
development would spoil the Old Milverton and Blackdown areas.
The area is well used for recreation.
Coventry's needs should be met in the area immediately adjacent to the City.
The infrastructure to support the housing does not exist. South of the river has more space and is better supported by infrastructure
See attached
Gwrthwynebu
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69343
Derbyniwyd: 14/04/2016
Ymatebydd: Mrs Susan Hucks
Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi
Cadarn? Nac Ydi
Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi
Exceptional circumstances for the removal of land north of Milverton from the green belt have not been demonstrated.
development would spoil the Old Milverton and Blackdown areas.
The area is well used for recreation.
Coventry's needs should be met in the area immediately adjacent to the City.
the infrastructure to support the housing does not exist. South of the river has more space and is better supported by infrastructure
See attached
Gwrthwynebu
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69346
Derbyniwyd: 22/04/2016
Ymatebydd: Julene Siddique
Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi
Cadarn? Nac Ydi
Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi
The lands proposed for 'development' are currently used for farming and local business.
They are also community grounds. Furthermore, this violates environmental
conservation of the warwickshire greenbelt. The proposed development and removal
of the greenbelt is not sound and not in accordance to the democratic will of the
Milverton community.
Removal of land north of Milverton from the green belt
Allocation of land north of Milverton for development
Mod no. 16 and 14
para. 2.81 and Policy DS15
Policies map H44
The lands proposed for 'development' are currently used for farming and local business.
They are also community grounds. Furthermore, this violates environmental
conservation of the warwickshire greenbelt. The proposed development and removal of the greenbelt is not sound and not in accordance to the democratic will of the Milverton community.
We need to consult the local communities before any 'developments' are made on their grounds. Only local companies should have rights to build/develop on local
grounds because they would be the ones who would know the socio-economic
and even well-being impact of their development. A company who is not local to the grounds being put forward for removal/development has no idea the socio-ecomonic and wellbeing impact that will have on the local community on whose grounds they are developing. The policy proposed is that only a company local to the Milverton area (who know the area and the impact of any developments) should be the only ones with development rights. If they are not local and not aware of the impact of their development they shouldn't have rights to make it. Thank You
Gwrthwynebu
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69354
Derbyniwyd: 15/04/2016
Ymatebydd: Crest Strategic Projects Limited
Asiant : d2planning
Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi
Cadarn? Nac Ydi
Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi
Not all of the land within Crest's control has been removed from the Green Belt and identified for development. Believe that this additional land does not fulfil any of the relevant Green Belt features and should accordingly be removed from the Green Belt and included within the proposed allocation of land at Westwood Heath Road as per the Vision Statement.
See attached
Gwrthwynebu
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69361
Derbyniwyd: 16/04/2016
Ymatebydd: Mr. Charles Mulraine
Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Heb nodi
Cadarn? Nac Ydi
Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi
Object to H44: -
- exceptional circumstances do not exist to remove land from green belt
- lower value sites closer to Coventry that should be used in preference
- WDC should not promote commuting from old Milverton to Coventry
- loss of open space between Kenilworth and Leamington
- park and ride could result in flooding from runoff and is unlikely to be used as there is sufficient parking in Leamington
- A452 already congested - will be worsened by additional traffic
See attached
Gwrthwynebu
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69363
Derbyniwyd: 05/04/2016
Ymatebydd: Mr. Philip Parker
Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi
Cadarn? Nac Ydi
Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi
Object to H44: -
- no exceptional circumstances to remove site from green belt
- site too far from Coventry to meet needs
- land available nearer to Coventry that is more suitable
- loss of open space between Leamington and Kenilworth
- loss of farmland
- park and ride unsustainable - sufficient parking available in Leamington
See attached
Gwrthwynebu
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69368
Derbyniwyd: 16/04/2016
Ymatebydd: Mrs Pauline Pemberton
Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi
Cadarn? Nac Ydi
Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi
Releasing land from green belt requires value of potential sites to be taken into account and those with least value are removed from green belt first. WDC / Coventry has determined sites on the edge of Coventry as being of lower green belt value. these should be used in preference to the land north of Milverton .
exceptional circumstances required by the NPPF to remove land north of Milverton from green belt have not been met by WDC
See attached
Gwrthwynebu
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69371
Derbyniwyd: 13/04/2016
Ymatebydd: Ian Salvin
Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi
Cadarn? Nac Ydi
Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi
Development won't meet objective of proposal.
People living / working in Coventry won't move to Milverton.
Park and ride ill-conceived.
Additional congestion generated by new residents.
Loss of farmland
Adverse impact on habitats and wildlife
loss of open space
See attached
Gwrthwynebu
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69373
Derbyniwyd: 09/04/2016
Ymatebydd: Mr. Louis Skiffington
Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Nac Ydi
Cadarn? Nac Ydi
Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi
Exceptional circumstances not demonstrated
Brownfield sites elsewhere should be explored
Sustainable sites elsewhere should be explored
Increased sprawl and encroachment
Loss of farmland
Loss of wildlife habitats
Loss of residential amenity
Lack of thought around park and ride
See attached
Gwrthwynebu
Proposed Modifications January 2016
ID sylw: 69384
Derbyniwyd: 08/04/2016
Ymatebydd: Mrs. Monica Warner
Cydymffurfio â’r gyfraith? Ydi
Cadarn? Nac Ydi
Dyletswydd i gydweithredu? Heb nodi
Exceptional circumstances for green belt removal (as required by the NPPF) have not been demonstrated. The development is needed to support Coventry's needs and should therefore be better located to that end (near / adjacent to Coventry). There must be brownfield sites in Coventry that need to be delivered. Coventry people will not be able to afford properties at North Leamington. Guys Cliffe Avenue and local road networks cannot cope as it is now , the park and ride is proposed at an unsustainable location. There is plenty of parking in Leamington town centre.
See attached