Noting the inclusion of:
"n) H42 - Land at Westwood Heath
o) H43 - Kings Hill (including land identified for development beyond the current plan period)
Proposals for all or part of the allocated strategic sites detailed above will be approved where they represent take full account of a comprehensive development scheme for the whole site."
The principle of this modification is supported although it is considered to be far more achievable and sustainable (and therefore "sound") if additional land on the edge of Coventry were to be included. This would then comply with the suggestion that a comprehensive Masterplan is needed if these areas are to be developed with maximum effect and minimum impact i.e as per 2.66 which states that "development on these sites comes forward within the context of an appropriate and comprehensive development scheme...."

For instance, large parts of H43 Kings Hill were considered by many at the Examination sessions to be flawed in comparison to Westwood Heath and the Safeguarded Area in particular. It is suggested that a greater emphasis on Westwood Heath (Safeguarded Area) AND the suggested land South of Gibbet Hill Road/North of Cryfield Lane would not only be more sustainable but would provide a major opportunity to address the one major stumbling block referred to at the Examination - the facilitation of the Link Road across the whole of the southern edge of Coventry and running right through the land between Coventry and HS2 i.e. the Area of Growth as defined in MM17 Policy DS NEW1.

We therefore support the further text and sentiment in 2.66 which should be extended to include the geographically equivalent land South of Gibbet Hill Road/North of Cryfield Lane. 2.66 states "To ensure the most sustainable and deliverable form of development is achieved on these significant sites, landowners are strongly encouraged to work together closely to produce the most appropriate overall scheme for the site. This might for example be achieved through the setting up of consortia or other formal means of co-ordinated joint working (including the local planning authority as a full partner)."

This is further reinforced by 2.67 which states "Without a comprehensive development scheme, the delivery of infrastructure and services (such as schools, open space, roads, transport facilities, community facilities and local centres) cannot be guaranteed or properly integrated into the area. Further, incremental proposals which do not take sufficient account of proposals for the whole site are less likely to deliver a high quality, integrated development which can build a strong sense of place and sustainable neighbourhoods."

We consider that in order to ensure the effectiveness of these policies (as intended) and ensure that the Plan is "sound", the proposed Modifications should be amended to include the suggested land South of Gibbet Hill Road/North of Cryfield Lane.

The population/housing need figures are not accurate and more up to date data is required before Kings Hill can even be considered as a strategic site. This is unsound and unjustified.