The Proposed number of house has been increased from 4000 to 4500. Evidence has been submitted showing that the area could not sustain even 4000.
The area was unable to accommodate 4000 houses because of the habitats. If each habitat, pond and ancient hedge is given the required protection there is not room for 4500 dwellings.
The south side of Coventry is stated in this main modification that it could provide 4500 houses whereas in MM8 the figure is stated as 4000. What is the planned figure.
The risk of flooding and contamination will be increased.
There is no account given in the modifications to the study by Professor Wellington on the undesirable bacteria in the local river resulting from no capacity at Finham Sewage Works.
There has been no public acknowledgment of the significant data that undermines the credibility of the need for 4000 houses let alone an increase to 4500.

The Proposed number of house has been increased from 4000 to 4500. Evidence has been submitted showing that the area could not sustain even 4000.
The area was unable to accommodate 4000 houses because of the habitats. If each habitat, pond and ancient hedge is given the required protection there is not room for 4500 dwellings.
The south side of Coventry is stated in this main modification that it could provide 4500 houses whereas in MM8 the figure is stated as 4000. What is the planned figure.
The risk of flooding and contamination will be increased.
There is no account given in the modifications to the study by Professor Wellington on the undesirable bacteria in the local river resulting from no capacity at Finham Sewage Works.
There has been no public acknowledgment of the significant data that undermines the credibility of the need for 4000 houses let alone an increase to 4500.

The definition of a new Area of Growth is strongly supported, as is the definition of the geographical area which includes but is not limited to the currently allocated sites.

It is believed that the overall "soundness" would be improved by the early allocation of further land for development South of Gibbet Hill Road/North of Cryfield Lane. Together with the addition of H42 and H43, the sustainability of the new development would be greatly enhanced AND would provide a major opportunity to address the one major stumbling block referred to at the Examination i.e. 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. in and serving the newly defined Area of Growth. This is referred to and confirmed in para 5 of DS NEW1.

It is suggested that this is confirmed by section 4 which states that "The area to which this policy relates will be subject to an early partial local plan review within five years of the date of adoption of the plan (DS20). This will allow the Council to address any additional evidence regarding the need and potential for development in this area and in particular to ascertain whether necessary infrastructure has become available to allow safeguarded land to be brought forward to meet local housing need, should additional housing be required."

As a result, it is further suggested that this urgency of the examination of the area, together with the urgency of the Masterplan required by MM31 and, the sustainability benefits which would derive, with specific reference to the text and sentiment explained in 2.66 of MM12 DS15 (Comprehensive Development of Strategic Sites) should be reason for Allocated Sites to be extended to include the geographically equivalent land South of Gibbet Hill Road/North of Cryfield Lane.

Para 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."

If this is not done now, as opposed to in the suggested near future, there will be a question over the "soundness" of the Plan, as modified.

This modification is supported in that it recognises the inevitability of expansion being both necessary and an opportunity to meet all the criteria and objectives set out in Appendix B Vision and strategic objectives for DSNEW1.

However, it is considered for the modified Plan to be "sound" such inevitability - all as cross referenced in MM 17 with the need for early formal review (MM16) and including the need to coordinate with an early long term Masterplan for the University (MM31), should be properly included in the Plan now and not undertaken as a separate, isolated exercise away from the transparency of the Local Plan Examination process.

The development at Kings Hill is based on an unsound information, inaccurate figures and out dated statistics. It conflicts with national policy in the NPPF. A need has not been demonstrated by a sub regional sustainability assessment across the region taking into consideration that Coventry is now part of the West Midlands Combined Authority