The principle of safeguarding land for future development is sound. Whilst land at Cryfield Grange / South of Gibbet Hill Road is considered to be suitable for allocation now, if this is not deemed appropriate, than it is considered that it should be identified as Safeguarded Land.
It directly adjoins: existing development; the University development; proposed development land in Coventry; and, other than Green Belt, is not affected by any suitability criteria used to define future development land.

REFERENCE LAND N. OF MILVERTON
MAP 2 S.2

Land identified as 'safeguarded' for development is Green Belt land

There is no case or exceptional circumstances for ever developing this land

The argument that Milverton Green Belt land should be developed to meet Coventry housing needs is spurious, therefore reserving additional land for even more development is nonsensical.

Development would join Leamington to Old Milverton Village which is against policy

'Safeguarding' for future development is irresponsible if forecast development needs can be met without it.

Any decision to lift Green Belt status on this land and agree planning permission for 425+ homes, initially with more in the future, allied to additional development in Burton Green & Cromwell Lane would be highly irresponsible unless and until substantial new provision was made to accommodate the increase traffic that would result.

Any policy makers should first visit the area and witness the traffic queues that already arise along Westwood Heath Road from Cromwell Lane to Kirby Corner roundabout on weekdays mornings as traffic attempts to access:
* Westwood Business Park
* Cannon Park and the A45
* Warwick University and the Kenilworth Road / A46
Likewise in the evenings, queues form back from Cromwell Lane down Westwood Heath Road as people make journeys back to Balsall Common, Kenilworth or Tile Hill.

You should fully take into account that the road across the University of Warwick campus is now restricted to 20 mph and the frequent stops made buses dropping up 80+ plus students at a time cause tail backs not only along Westwood Heath Road but back up to Cannon Park and the A45.

An alternative access route from Westwood to Kenilworth along Crackley Lane, which is already used a 'rat run' to avoid the University Campus is highly unsuited to an increase in traffic and already dangerous to both vehicular traffic and especially cyclists, due it's narrowness, sharp blind corners, and extensive pot holes especially along the verges that cause cyclists and vehicles to utilise the middle of road resulting in close misses, as I am frequently aware of as both a cyclist and driver.

Any development at Westwood would surely require the widening of Crackley Lane as an absolute minimum.

I would also suggest that the route across Warwick campus would need to be re-considered, removing the 20 mph limit, erecting barriers to protect pedestrians and construction walkways across the road instead of having students walking out in front of vehicles as they do today.

The University also now propose a new Sports complex near Kirby Corner which in itself will result in more traffic in the local area.

Furthermore you should be aware of the frequent instances of 'unlit' student cyclists around Westwood Heath, which would become even more of a danger with a rise in traffic. You may refer to the Police Liaison Team at the University to validate that issue / concern.

Finally I would invite the planners to visit the Banner brook development in Coventry and the surrounding roads where the Massey Ferguson plant once existed, on any weekday morning or evening to witness and experience the traffic congestion that has arisen following a similar large scale housing development with no foresight or appreciation of the impact on local traffic and residents. If residents aren't away from their properties by around 8 am and travelling to Westwood Park / Warwick Uni they might as well stay at home until past 9 am, or sit in a queue for an hour. The same fate would face residents of Westwood and Burton Green.

Yes we are told that new homes are required, but great thought and consideration as the infrastructure required to support such developments must be undertaken.

It was with dismay that I read in the Courier that the council is again targeting Green Belt land North of Leamington for development, it felt worse that it seems that it is being used as a Coventry overspill.
Is Bill Gifford the only councillor that can see the obvious fact that a Coventry overspill should be sited by Coventry?
If the proposed park and ride in Blackdown proves to be a failure, is there provision to return the land to Green Belt and ensure there is no development on this land?
Old Milverton and Blackdown parish council were excellent last time the council tried to use this precious Green Belt which keeps our local identity separate from Kenilworth and as a proud Leamingtonian, I will fully support them in their efforts to have this attempt refused.

In June 2012 I wrote to the Council objecting strongly to the plans to build on green belt land north of Leamington.

At the time, the plan was based on population growth forecasts which, in my view were erroneous and it did not follow the NPPF.

Nothing has changed, so why has this plan been put forward again?

The NPPF states that any plan should:

1 Promote town centre environments
2 Promote vitality of urban areas
3 Protect green belts around them
4 Recognise the benefits of best agricultural land
5 Conserve landscape and scenic beauty
6 Use brown field sites first
7 Only change green belt boundaries under exceptional circumstances
8 Even then only consider limited infilling of green belt land
9 Avoid potential coalescence

These plans ignore all 9 points.

These are not exceptional circumstances.

The plans should be scrapped again to preserve the sacrosanct boundaries in this 'Green and Pleasant Land'.

I have read the proposals in the WDC Draft Local Plan and would like to express my concerns and objections.

Whilst agreeing to the need for additional housing to be provided in Warwickshire I firmly object to the withdrawal of the green belt land to the north of Milverton to provide for this new housing.

The green belt is a very valuable green lung and provides an area of great benefit for the residents of Leamington Spa and Kenilworth healthy activities including walking, running, cycling of etc

It is important as a positive break between the two conurbations and as a necessary wild life habitat.

Whilst agreeing to the need for sustainable development I cannot agree that exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated for the land to be released for this proposed invasion of the green belt at this time.

There is a suggestion of the provision of a Park & Ride facility. To what benefit? I do not believe that residents of the suggested development will use this facility when it is so close to the centre of Leamington Spa. If they have cars they will always prefer using them unless they only have very lightweight shopping to carry. Also the existing roads into Leamington Spa and Warwick are already terribly congested, and even if they are widened there will still be bottleneck at the entrance and exit from the towns without the addition of a possible 1350 plus cars for the residents proposed over the next 5 years.

The proposed development in Old Milverton to provide housing for Coventry is absurd. This is not sustainable. It should be close to Coventry where there is plenty of available space, both to the North. South and West which have already been identified as of much lower green belt value. Coventry's need for additional housing should be met by development closer to Coventry to be more sustainable, and I do not believe that there are exceptional circumstances for removing the Green Belt land to the north of Milverton.

I am writing to register my vehement opposition to Warwick District Council's proposed removal of the land north of Milverton from the green belt and development plans in the immediate area as sited in modifications 14 and 16(Policy DS15). As a long standing resident and tax payer of North Leamington I am proud to have such a special area of protected land in the green belt area around Milverton and Old Milverton and as a member of the congregation of St.James church in Old Milverton I find the peace and serenity to worship in such a setting a true blessing. As a keen nature lover I regularly frequent the village and surrounding fields in my free time for walking,bird watching and enjoying the beauty held there as I know many other individuals,families and school groups alike do. The land is also a site of highly productive farming and a long established wildlife habitat which we should all fight to preserve. Development would forever spoiling village life for those who have long lived and visited there . I do not believe that developing this land to produce housing would prove desirable or practical to provide the housing needs of those who want to live and work in Coventry and,if developed,the damage to this beauty and habitat would be irrevocable. I do not believe that the 'exceptional circumstances' required to remove the land north of Milverton from the Green Belt has been demonstrated by Warwick District Council and I feel that other sites assessed by WDC and Coventry City Council of a lower Green Belt value on the edge of Coventry would be not only wiser in terms of the lesser environmental and recreational value but also more practical in their proximity to Coventry,reducing the need for unnecessary commuting,inevitable congestion of an already heavily travelled route . Surely those sites with a lower Green Belt value should be used in preference to that North of Milverton! The green lung between Leamington and Kenilworth would be reduced to 1 1/2 miles were development be allowed and the picturesque northern gateway to regency Leamington Spa would be lost to urban sprawl.
In regards to the proposed park and ride scheme I believe that this would be unsustainable as there are no dedicated buses planned so users would have to time visits to coincide with the bus timetable,something which regular commuters would be less likely to do than casual visitors and the site planned is too close to Leamington and would create further gridlock near the town. It would be better sited near the A46 roundabout with the A452,which could form part of the Thickthorn Development,and provide for Leamington,Warwick,Kenilworth,Warwick University and,potentially Coventry. Much of the traffic using the A452 crosses to the south of Leamington where there are major employers. I also believe that shoppers are unlikely to use the park and ride scheme when there is plenty of existing parking in and around Leamington. Furthermore,there are already numerous car parks in the proposed area of Green Belt with impervious surfaces,all of which reduce the area's ability to absorb rainfall and contribute to flooding,something which is already a regular occurrence in heavy rainfall.
I cannot convey strongly enough my opposition to the proposed plans,both on a practical and emotional basis and hope that Warwick District Council will heed the views of its residents before making the mistake of causing irrevocable change and damage. Thank you for your consideration of my views.

See attached

Modification: Removal of land north of Milverton from the green belt
Mod Number: 16
Paragraph Number: 2.81
Mod. Policies Map Number: H44

Modification: Allocation of land north of Milverton for development
Mod Number: 14
Paragraph Number: Policy DS15
Mod. Policies Map Number: H44

In my opinion the Local Plan is unsound because it is not justified, effective nor is it consistent with National policy.

Warwick District Council ("WDC") has failed to demonstrate the EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES required by the National Planning Policy Framework to remove the land North of Milverton from the Green Belt and to permit the proposed development.

Initially 250 houses are proposed to support Coventry City Council's housing need. In practice people who want to live and work in Coventry will not buy houses on land North of Milverton and, therefore, this development will not support Coventry's housing need. There are sustainable sites closer to Coventry that should be used in preference to the land North of Milverton so as to reduce unnecessary commuting, inevitable congestion and further road construction. The proposed development is therefore not sustainable. In addition this is a very small development, which equates to an annual additional build of only 19.2 houses over the remaining 13 years of the Plan period. These houses could be accommodated on other sites and, therefore, the harm caused to the green belt by this development by reason of inappropriateness outweighs any potential benefit.

The proposed park-and-ride scheme is unsustainable because:
* There will be no dedicated buses, so users will have to time visits to coincide with the bus timetable
* The site is too close to Leamington. It would be better if the site was focused on the A46 roundabout with the A452, which could form part of the Thickthorn development, and provide for Leamington, Warwick, Kenilworth, Warwick University and potentially Coventry.
* Much of the traffic using the A452 crosses to the south of Leamington where there are the major employers
* Shoppers are unlikely to use the park and ride when there is plenty of parking in Leamington
* Oxford appears to have the only park and ride scheme in the country which really works and this is because there is such limited parking in Oxford city centre.
* The proposal is predicated on a significant increase in car parking charges as an attempt to change behaviour and will have a detrimental effect on the Leamington as a Town Centre.

Additional land north of Milverton is to be "safeguarded" for development beyond the Plan period, to provide a further 1100 homes for Coventry. This will not support Coventry's hosing need because in practice people who want to live and work in Coventry will not buy houses on land North of Milverton. There are sustainable sites closer to Coventry that should be used in preference to the land North of Milverton to prevent unnecessary commuting, inevitable congestion and further road construction. The proposed development is therefore not sustainable.

WDC has also said that the "safeguarded land" north of Milverton could be used in the future to support Leamington's housing need. There are other green field sites that are available, and deliverable which should be used in preference. Therefore, WDC has previously accepted that the Exceptional Circumstances necessary to remove this land from the Green Belt to support Leamington's housing need do not exist. Nothing has changed which could alter this acceptance.

Precedence for releasing land from the Green Belt requires the "value" of potential sites to the Green Belt to be taken into account and those with the least value to be removed from the Green Belt first. WDC, in cooperation with Coventry City Council, has assessed sites on the edge of Coventry as being of lower Green Belt value. Even if development at Old Milverton was acceptable as a sustainable location for development, there are sites with a lower Green Belt value that should be used in preference to the land north of Milverton.

The proposed railway station is unviable because the railway line is in a deep cutting in Old Milverton making construction impractical.

The land North of Milverton is used by many people for recreation. If developed the residents of local towns will be deprived of an area which is highly valued and sustainable for walking, running, cycling, riding, bird watching and is also used by local schools for educational walks.

The land North of Milverton has performed the requirements of the Green Belt and it should continue to do so:

* It has stopped Kenilworth, Coventry and Leamington merging. If this land is removed from the green belt the "green lung" between Leamington and Kenilworth will be reduced to less than 1 1/2 miles.

* It has stopped Leamington "sprawling". Development stops at the green belt boundary

* It protects the historic setting for regency town of Royal Leamington Spa which will be destroyed if development is allowed.

* It has encouraged urban regeneration in the neighbouring towns

* It has safeguarded the countryside. If this land is removed from the green belt, highly productive farming land will be lost together with long established wild life habitat.

In order for the modifications to the Local Plan to become sound the land North of Milverton should remain in the Green Belt.

In total Warwick District Council has agreed to provide land for 6000 houses to meet Coventry's housing need. However the modifications to the Local Plan propose that only 2245 of these houses will be close to Coventry. The remaining houses will be located in Kenilworth, Warwick and Leamington. WDC's proposal to encourage commuting (most of which will be by road) on this scale is irresponsible and bad planning.

See attached

A C Lloyd Ltd
Land at Blackdown, Leamington Spa.

1. An objection is submitted to Modifications 16, 19 and 22 on the basis that inadequate provision has been made for the removal of land from the Green Belt to meet 'longer term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period'.

2. The District Council has found it necessary to define Green Belt boundaries on an exceptional basis - fundamentally to promote sustainable patterns of development.

3. It is noted that in New2.2 as part of Modification 23 "The Council recognises that there is a limited amount of suitable land currently available outside of the Green Belt to meet long‐term development needs, particularly those needs arising in Coventry. Therefore identifying 'safeguarded land' in appropriate locations may assist in meeting the long‐term development needs of the functional housing and economic market area".

4. Therefore, it is clear that there is no realistically foreseeable planning strategy whereby development needs of the District in the next plan period can be met, other than requiring the use of land which is presently designated as Green Belt.

5. In the context of paragraph 85 of the Framework, we submit that insufficient provision has been made for safeguarded land , to meet development needs 'stretching well beyond the plan period' and that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the plan period.

6. Furthermore, in terms of geographical provision of safeguarded land only two large scale sites are relied upon to meet future development needs , namely north of Milverton and south of Westwood Heath Road bordering the administrative area of Coventry.

7. In the context of the urban form of Warwick and Leamington Spa, the scale of Safeguarded Land should be increased so as to avoid subsequent redrawing of Green Belt boundaries in the roll forward of this Local Plan, A spread of sites should be identified which can promote sustainable patterns of development, promoting housing choice of location and increasing the propensity to increase the delivery of housing.

8. The site edged red on the accompanying plan identifying land south of Sandy Lane, Blackdown is not proposed for release from the Green Belt as an allocation for housing or safeguarded land in Proposed Modifications to the Local Plan as submitted for Examination, although it was proposed to be released from Green Belt and allocated for housing in earlier versions of the emerging Local Plan.

9. The Preferred Options Document, which was published for consultation between June and August 2012, proposed the release of the land from the Green Belt and the allocation of the land together with other sites to the west and the east.

10. We have attached a Plan taken from the Local Plan Preferred Options which shows the location of the proposed sites around Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth. Policy PO4, proposed to allocate the site as part of an overall allocation of 1,170 dwellings with employment, open space and commercial at Blackdown.

11. As would be expected the Council undertook an assessment of the site to assess whether exceptional circumstances existed that would justify the release of land from the Green belt. The document comments as follows:

7.26 The northern, western and eastern edges of Warwick and Leamington and the whole of Kenilworth are bounded by the southernmost section of the Warwickshire Green Belt. If development is to be distributed across the District it will be necessary to alter the boundary of the Green Belt. NPPF states that, once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. Further, when reviewing Green Belt boundaries local planning authorities should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development.

7.27 Exceptional circumstances can include the need to accommodate housing and employment growth to meet the needs of a community where there are insufficient suitable and available sites outside of the Green Belt. Where it can be justified to review the Green Belt boundary in order to accommodate development, it is necessary to assess Green Belt land in terms of its contribution towards the five "purposes" of including land in the Green Belt (NPPF Para 80). The Joint Green Belt Study [2009] carried out such an assessment of parcels of Green Belt land on the edge of Warwick, Leamington, Kenilworth and Coventry.

7.29 In the case of meeting the housing needs of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash, the SHLAA identifies a potential capacity within the urban area of 650 dwellings on sites of 50 or more. Outside of the built up area, and outside of the Green Belt, the SHLAA identified a capacity of 7,200 dwellings. These sites are concentrated in the area around Europa Way, Gallows Hill and Harbury Lane as well as to the south and east of Whitnash.

7.30 The Council has concerns about focussing around 6,000 new homes in such a concentrated area. The reasons for this include:
* The impact on infrastructure, in particular transport and the increased car journeys between the Europa Way area, the town centres and the M40
* The continued southerly spread of development and the impact of closing the gap between Warwick /Whitnash and Bishop's Tachbrook
* The lack of choice of location of new housing and uncertainty about the ability of the markets to deliver this level of development in the locality within the plan period

7.31 There are advantages to locating some development to the north of Leamington Spa and Warwick. These include:
* The possibility of including some employment land within the development - employment areas are currently concentrated in the south of Leamington, leading to many cross town centre trips
* Greater choice of location of new homes
* The benefits which could be realised from the construction of a northern relief road which would relieve congestion on through routes between Warwick and Leamington town centres

7.32 Assessment of Green Belt land to the north of Warwick and Leamington in the Joint Green Belt Study concluded that the land bounded by the A46 in the west, the River Avon to the north and Sandy Lane to the east was worthy of further study. This was largely because there were no other towns to the north, from which the Green Belt would provide protection from encroachment, but also because there were other physical barriers to the wider open countryside. The Green Belt assessment suggested that the land at Blackdown was not suitable for further study. However, the land has similar characteristics to land to the west in that there are no towns to the north, from which the Green Belt would provide protection from encroachment, and there are clear boundaries to the site to protect the open countryside beyond.

12. As can be seen from above, the Council itself did demonstrate that exceptional circumstances existed which justified a Green Belt release and specifically included the land south of Sandy Lane, Blackdown as part of the Blackdown proposed allocation.

13. We agree with the Council's previous assessment of exceptional circumstances in terms of paragraphs 84 and 85 of the Framework. If such an approach was valid as a Green Belt analysis in 2012, it is logical that a similar conclusion should be reached now if it was necessary for the Council to release land from the Green Belt. It should be noted that this was against the backdrop of a proposed housing requirement of 10,800 dwellings between 2011 and 2029.

14. Subsequently the Council amended their proposed allocations. A revised document, The Revised Development Strategy was published for consultation between June and July 2013. Following the June/July 2012 consultation, the Council revised the broad locations for development. This was partly due to the consultation responses, but also as a result of new information on the ability of non-Green Belt sites to the south of Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash to absorb new development. The analysis of representations received following the June/July 2012 consultation showed considerable opposition to development in the Green Belt to the north of Warwick and Leamington, particularly if there were alternative non-Green Belt locations to the south of the towns. Further, there was a general desire for more development to take place on brownfield land.

15. In the light of representations received and new evidence, the Council re-examined the capacity of non-Green Belt land, to the south of Warwick/ Leamington/ Whitnash, and brownfield land to accommodate new development. Therefore the Green Belt release north of Leamington Spa were dropped from the Plan.
16. This strategy eventually evolved into the submitted plan (January 2015) which was considered at the Examination in May 2015 based on a housing requirement of 12,860 between 2011 and 2029

17. The proposed Modifications are based upon an updated Assessment of Housing Need (Coventry‐Warwickshire HMA September 2015) which sets out the objectively assessed future housing needs of the Housing Market Area and the six local authority areas within it. The report indicates that Warwick District's Objectively Assessed Housing Need is 600 dwellings per annum, which equates to 10,800 dwellings over the plan period. However, in recognition that Coventry City Council is unable to accommodate its housing needs in full within the City boundary, the Local Plan seeks to provide for 332 dwellings per annum (5976 over the plan period) towards Coventry's housing needs. Warwick District therefore aims to meet its housing requirement by providing for a minimum of 16,776 new homes between 2011 and 2029.

18. Consequently, part of the housing requirement set out in Proposed Modification 4 - Policy DS6 seeks to meet Coventry's housing need.

19. In January 2016, there have been a two appeal decisions (The Asps (Appeal Ref 2221613) and Gallows Hill (Appeal Ref 2229398)- combined capacity of 1350 dwellings. Neither of these sites were proposed as allocations in the Submitted Local Plan. As a consequence of these decisions the Council now proposes to introduce a new allocation north of Gallows Hill for housing.

20. It is possible that the appeal decisions at the Asps and Gallows Hill may have impacted upon the Council's strategy for Green Belt release north of Leamington Spa.

21. It now even more the case that nearly all of the non-green sites suitable for development south of Warwick/Leamington have been identified. Thus one of the principal reasons for rejecting the option of further release of land from the Green Belt to meet the growth of Warwick District has been superseded - notwithstanding the Coventry factor.

22. As a result, WDC has as part of the Proposed Modifications process identified Green Belt releases (Proposals H44 and S2) north of Warwick/Leamington in terms of this being a sustainable location in terms of paragraph 84 of the Framework. Provision is also made for an area of search for a Park and Ride. However, the extent of this area of search is confusing as it appears from the Proposed Modification to the Policy Map (Leamington, Warwick and Whitnash - Milverton Extract to include land east of Kenilworth Road in the vicinity of Blackdown.

23. The Council has concluded that it is 'necessary' to identify areas of safeguarded land between the urban area and the Green Belt to meet longer term development needs (Framework 85, third bullet point).


24. While the potential capacity of the two areas of land identified under Policy DSNEW 2 (Sites S1 and S2) are not identified, a reasonable assessment may be:

S1: Land south of Westwood Road
Circa 1000 dwellings (on basis the Safeguarded Land is about twice the allocated site H42 (capacity 425)).

S2: Land north of Milverton
Circa 700 dwellings (on the basis the area of Safeguarded Land is about two and a half times the allocated site H44 (capacity 250 dwellings)).

25. Some basic principles should apply in the identification of Safeguarded Land:

i. While housing is the largest scale of development need in terms of land take, it should not be assumed that land is identified as Safeguarded Land solely for the purposes of accommodating future housing needs. Other spatial development needs, including for example provision for employment, education, health may require land beyond the limits of existing built up areas that are bounded by the Green Belt.

ii. Paragraph 84 makes it clear that national planning policy expects a review of Green Belt boundaries to 'promote sustainable patters of development. Paragraph 85, confirms that where necessary (as in Warwick DC's case) the LPA should identify 'safeguarded land' , so as to meet longer term development needs well beyond the Plan period. As such, national planning policy seeks the safeguarding of a sufficient quantity of land to meet reasonable expectations as to development requirements for a period well beyond 2029.

iii. The third bullet point of paragraph 85 is to be read with the fifth. Unless sufficient provision is made for Safeguarded Land, then there is a real risk that the boundaries of the Green Belt will need to again be reviewed at the end of the Plan period to accommodate future development needs.


26. While it is recognised that the allocation of land is to meet development needs in the Green Belt is contentious with local communities - often on a less than full comprehension of the Green Belt policy - confidence in the proper application of Green Belt policy is likely to be undermined to a greater extent with the local community if in the review of the Local Plan - which may be anticipated to commence within 5 years - proposes new proposals for redefining Green Belt boundaries.

27. As such, it is submitted that the public interest - and confidence in the plan-led planning system - is better served by excluding more land from the Green Belt and safeguarding, rather than making an inadequate provision which then requires further alteration of Green Belt boundaries on the first review of the Local Plan. In that way, provision for Safeguarded Land is made to meet longer term development needs 'stretching well beyond the plan period.'

28. The fact that the precise scale of development needs for the Plan period beyond 2029 cannot be determined - does not make ineffective the process of identifying adequate Safeguarded Land - and should not be considered 'consistent with the national planning policy' as a reasoning for not making further provision.

29. For the current plan period, the Plan proposes the alteration of Green Belt boundaries to make provision for residential development at the following locations:

Location Site Ref No of Dwellings

Red House Farm, Leamington Spa H04 250
Rouncil Lane, Kenilworth H12 130
Thickthorn, Kenilworth H06 760
Southcrest, Kenilworth H40 640
Warwick Road H41 100
Westwood Heath H42 425
Kings Hill H43 1,800
North of Milverton H44 250
Oak Lea Farm, Finham H08 20
Baginton H19 80
Burton Green H24 90
Cubbington H25, H26, H50 195
Hampton Magna H27, H58 245
Hatton Park H28, H58 120
Kingswood H29, H30, H31, H32, H33 56
Leek Wootton H37 5



30. This scale of necessary release of land from the Plan period may be compared to the provision for Safeguarded Land of circa 1,700 dwellings - of land that may not be required only to meet residential development needs.

31. It is submitted that this scale of provision cannot reasonably be considered consistent with national planning policy to 'meet longer term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period'. If a basic proportionate assessment is made, this scale of provision would extend about 3 years into the roll forward of the Plan period.

32. A response to the plan - making adequate provision for longer term development needs is a claim that the land will be released unnecessarily for development, as though the notation Safeguarded Land weakens the management of development by the LPA. The fourth bullet point of paragraph 85 of the Framework dispels this fear.

33. Indeed, in research undertaken for the report 'The Effectiveness of Green Belts' [1993], this concern was examined for an evidential basis. The Report concludes:

'Three further arguments against safeguarded land were put to us. It was suggested that safeguarded land would attract much extra speculative activity, and its maintenance would therefore be impossible. There was little evidence however to demonstrate this.'


34. In conclusion, we consider that land south of Sandy Lane, Blackdown should be released from the Green Belt and be identified as Safeguarded Land as part of the Local Plan process for the following reasons:

* WDC has previously identified in 2012 that exceptional circumstances do exist which would justify the release of the subject land from the Green Belt. These exceptional circumstances apply equally in 2016, in the context of ensuring that the Green Belt boundary should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period.

* The Council has provided no evidence to demonstrate that it can be satisfied that the proposed Green Belt boundaries are capable of enduring well beyond the plan period. Indeed the disproportionate provision of Safeguarded Land suggests that Green Belt boundaries would need to be altered at the end of the plan period.

* As part of this Local Plan process, the Council has previously moved away from a Green Belt release option due to further information being available which meant that more non-green belt land could be released south of Warwick/Leamington. However, most of the land suitable for development south of the town have now been identified as proposed allocations or has planning permission and there appears to be a view amongst the general public that south of the town has had enough.

* The level of housing requirement in the district has been increasing consistently. There is no sign that this growth will tail off at the (contrived) end of the plan period in 2029. Thus, more land is likely to be required in the Housing Market Area beyond 2029.

* The analysis that informed the 2012 Preferred Options Local Plan i.e. Blackdown, and the subject land in particular, demonstrates that the land can be released from the Green Belt. This analysis forms part of the Council's Local Plan evidence base and is contained within a document entitled 'Options for Future Urban Expansion in Warwick District Considerations for Sustainable Landscape Planning - Richard Morrish Associates November 2012.

35. Having regard to the above, we conclude that exceptional circumstances exist which justify the release of land south of Sandy Lane, Blackdown from the Green Belt in the context of paragraphs 84 and 85 of the Framework. The land should be identified as safeguarded land.

see attached

see attached

see attached

See attached

Sustainability Appraisal Process

1. The statutory requirements concerning SA of Local Plans are set out in European Directive 2001/42/EC [the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive or 'the Directive'], which was transposed into English law by the Act and the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 [the 2004 Regulations]. Section 19(5) of the Act requires an appraisal of the sustainability of the proposals in a development plan document, such as this LP, to be carried out and for a report to be prepared. SA covered by this provision incorporate the corresponding requirements of the Directive and the 2004 Regulations. Regulation 12 of the 2004 Regulations provides that an SA report must identify, describe and evaluate the likely significant effects on the environment of: a) implementing the plan; and b) the reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the plan. The SA report has to include such of the information set out in Schedule 2 as is reasonably required.

2. The purpose of the SA (incorporating the requirements of the SEA Directive) is to ensure that the plan or programme (in this instance the Warwick Submission Local Plan Proposed Modifications - LPPM) promotes the principles of sustainable development by assessing the potential environmental, social and economic impacts or benefits of the plan and incorporating suitable mitigation measures to decrease or increase these respectively.

3. Paragraph 165 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that A sustainability appraisal which meets the requirements of the European Directive on strategic environmental assessment should be an integral part of the plan preparation process, and should consider all the likely significant effects (of the plan) on the environment, economic and social factors.

4. The Guidance (NPPG) explains that the role of SA is to promote sustainable development by assessing the extent to which the emerging plan, when judged against reasonable alternatives, will help to achieve relevant environmental, economic and social objectives (Paragraph 11-001-20140306). The SA needs to compare all reasonable alternatives including the preferred approach. It should predict and evaluate the effects of the preferred approach and reasonable alternatives, and clearly identify the positive and negative effects of each alternative. All reasonable alternatives should be assessed at the same level of detail as the preferred approach. The SA should outline the reasons why the alternatives were selected, the reasons why the rejected alternatives were not taken forward and the reasons for selecting the preferred approach in the light of the alternatives (Paragraph 11-018-20140306).

5. The Local Plan has had a long gestation period and this is reflected in the numerous SA that form part of the evidence base, which goes back to the original scoping report in 2011. The more recent SA of note includes the Village Housing Options SA in November 2013, which examined the potential development options in the main villages. There followed Publication Draft SA Report in April 2014 and the Submission SA in February 2015. Each stage in this process considered the strategic options and sites. The submission SA in February 2015 brought the earlier work together to support the consultation on the Proposed Submission Version of the Local Plan

6. It is important to note that during this process the scale of housing development was steadily increasing but as can be seen below it is only at the Proposed Modifications stage that the level of requirement increased substantially i.e. 30.5% above the Submitted Plan:

Plan Version Level of Housing Requirement 2011 - 2029 Date

Revised Development Strategy 12,300 June 2013
Publication Draft local Plan 12,860 April 2014
Submission Plan 12,860 Feb 2015
Proposed Modifications 16,776 Feb 2016

7. A key part of the emerging LPPM is the allocation of land of an appropriate scale, location and type to meet the necessary housing and economic requirements of Warwick District during the plan period. To accommodate the substantial level of additional housing required the Council has had to reconsider the suitability of a wide range of sites that had been previously rejected.

8. Whilst the SA process does not make the final decision on which sites to allocate, it does provide powerful evidence to aid the decision making process as it is unlikely that 'unsustainable sites' will be favoured in the preferred policy. Where sites are selected, the SA process must clearly demonstrate how the alternatives were selected and why sites were discarded.

9. A major concern arises about the way in which the consideration of alternatives has been handled in the SA process in respect of the Proposed Modifications. In the context of these representations to the LPPM, one of the key aims is to review and understand the process by which the SA may have contributed to the rejection of reasonable alternatives for additional development in the Villages centres as an option (in favour of major green belt/green field release new settlement proposals elsewhere) and therefore the exclusion from the strategy of potential residential development sites on the edge of sustainable settlements to meet the substantial housing need, in particular sites CU3*o and CU4*O at Cubbington. It is also of concern that site H50 at Cubbington has emerged at the same time.

10. To understand how the PMLP reaches the conclusion regarding the distribution of development the methodology and documents from the Sustainability Appraisal of the PMLP have been reviewed.

11. The Proposed Modifications provide the first opportunity for all parties to express a view on the Council's approach. No consideration was given to potential allocations in the previous stages of the Local Plan because the scale of requirement was substantially smaller.

12. Additionally, the SA provides no consideration of the relative in-combination effects of additional development in the different options. The SA's consideration of in-combination effects is partial and incomplete.

Consideration of alternatives and the legality of the Proposed Modifications SA

13. In the case of Cubbington, it is apparent that the SA has failed to give adequate reasons for discounting sustainable sites, such as CU3*O (Allotment Gardens, Coventry Road) and CU4*O (Waverly Equestrian Centre), at the Proposed Modifications stage in the context of a substantially increased housing requirement.

14. Appendix IV of the Proposed Modifications SA sets out the 'Potential Site Allocations - Chronology of Identification, Assessment, Refinement & Development of Options'.

In terms of sites CU3*O and CU4*O, it states:

Village Housing Options Consultation SA Nov 2013

Discounted Options - Subject to SA, appraisal presented alongside the Consultation Doc for public consultation in November 2013.

Warwick District Council
Publication Draft Local Plan
Sustainability Appraisal Report
April 2014

No change to sites - CU3*O and CU4*O - Discounted Options

No further appraisal work required. Reasons for the selection/ rejection of Options provided in Section 4 of the SA Report.

Consideration of Strategic Options is summarised at paragraph 2.11 of the SA which states:

2.11 Reasonable strategic options for the level and distribution of growth were subject to high level strategic SA against each SA objective in 2011, 2012 and 2013. The findings of this work is summarised in Section 4 with the detail provided in the Scoping Report (2011), Initial SA Report (2012) and Interim SA Report (2013), which are all available on the Council's website. The appraisal carried out in 2013 provided a commentary describing the potential effects and possibilities for mitigation of any adverse effects or enhancements of positive effects. Any changes to the overall level or distribution of growth proposed in the Local Plan since the Revised Development strategy consultation in 2013 have also been considered in Section 4.

Warwick District Council
Submission Local Plan
Sustainability Appraisal Report
February 2015

No change to site. Discounted Option.

The appraisal of site options for Burton Green (sic) have been updated to reflect consultation reps. The revised appraisal is presented in Appendix VI and the reasons for selection/ rejection of sites are provided in Table 4.20.

Paragraph 4.69 of the SA Feb 2015 states:

4.69 To take account of consultation responses received on the Publication Draft SA Report (April 2014) revisions have been made to the appraisals for proposed site options in Burton Green and Cubbington. The findings and revised appraisals for potential village site options are presented in Appendix VI of this Report. Table 4.19 (sic) provides an outline of the reasons for selection/rejection of alternatives for village site allocations.
Table 4.20 of the SA states:

CU3*O - Allotment Gardens, Coventry Road- Rejected option - would lead to a significant finger of new development into an area of high landscape value.
CU4*O - Waverley Equestrian Centre - Rejected option - would lead to a significant finger of new development into an area of high landscape value.

N.B. Table 4.19 of the SA Feb 2015 contains a number of sites rejected at that time which have now come forward as allocations at the Proposed Modifications stage e.g. The Asps, Gallows Hill, Westwood Heath, North of Milverton.

Warwick District Council
Local Plan:
Proposed Modifications
Sustainability Appraisal
Addendum Report
February 2016

Sites CU3*O and CU4*O - Site still not included. No changes.

No further SA work required.
Paragraphs 3.28 and 3.29 of the SA Feb 2016 state:

3.28 The Proposed Modifications set out a number of changes to the village sites allocated under Policy DS11 and these were screened for their significance with regard to SA. The majority of the proposed changes do not significantly affect the findings of the previous SA work for village/rural site options - as presented in Section 4 and Appendix VI of the Submission SA Report (SA10). The Council has considered four new site options for the growth of villages in Baginton, Barford, Cubbington and Hatton Park that have previously not been considered through the SA process and each was subject to full SA with details of findings presented in Appendix III of this SA Addendum Report. The sustainability appraisal of the new sites identified potential major negative effects as a result of the loss of Green Belt and best and most versatile agricultural land, however this is consistent with previous findings and the findings of the SA for the overall cumulative effects for the villages were not significantly affected.

3.29 There were a number of other new site options considered through planmaking but not progressed further as allocations in the Proposed Modifications to the Local Plan. These were options that had not been previously subject to SA in 2015. Therefore, they were tested through SA and the findings are also presented in Appendix III of this SA Addendum Report. The reasons for not progressing these new site options are provided in Appendix IV of this SA Addendum Report that sets out a chronology of site options.

15. It is clear therefore that sites CU3*O and CU4*O were not subject to further SA work at the Proposed Modifications stage. It is also apparent that the allocations in the Proposed Modifications were not considered in combination and no reasonable alternatives were even identified, let alone considered.
16. Following the judgment in the Cogent Land case, it is clear that, in principle, the identified defects in the SA process may be cured by a later document.

17. In order to rectify these defects further SA work would need to be undertaken. As part of that exercise the Council should revisit the reasons given for selecting the now preferred option and rejecting the alternative options to ensure that there is a robust justification.

18. Once the further SA work is complete it should form the basis of an SA report that meets all the relevant requirements of the Directive and the 2004 Regulations. The SA report will need to be published for public consultation and, depending on its outcome, further SA work may indicate the need for further proposed modifications to the Local Plan. Any such modifications would need to be the subject of public consultation.

19. It is clear therefore that there are a number of deficiencies in the SA process which demonstrates that it is not legally compliant with the directive nor with guidance issued by government and is therefore unsound. These deficiencies are;

i) The lack of clear evidence as part of the consultation process to demonstrate the consideration of alternatives, which runs contrary to the open and transparent nature of the SA / SEA process and is a legal requirement.

ii) A failure to comply with NPPG Paragraphs 11-001-20140306 and 11-018-20140306 as noted above.

iv) A failure to comply with (Annex I (h)) of the Directive which requires that the Environmental Report outlines the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with.

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

see attached

see attached

see attached