See accompanying attachment

I am very pleased to see the inclusion of additional policy KP22, Flooding, in the final draft of the document.
However, I am concerned that the wording is not specific enough to give guidance to developers as to what is or isn't acceptable, or which areas are covered by the policy (e.g. is it meant to cover residential/commercial areas?). There is a risk that this policy as currently worded may risk excluding the possibility of the use of natural flood management within the Kenilworth area in the future.

See attachment for full text (summarised):

Welcome opportunity to comment on KNP which makes reference to a number of issues relevant to the Highways England network.

KNP bases strategic and non strategic transport policies on those outlined within the EDLP.

KNP outlines intention to promote the use of sustainable modes of transport.

Sites already in the planning pipeline will provide appropriate mitigation for their respective traffic impact where applicable. Supporting evidence for development proposals will need to demonstrate that no undue harm to the operation and functionality of the SRN will result, and where necessary improvements will be required.

Also note commentary on the new Kenilworth Railway Station in the KNP. HE is generally supportive of the new station as this will give opportunities to reduce traffic on the A46.

We are pleased to note that our suggestions at Regulation 14 stage have been addressed.

Our previous general Regulation 14 comments remain entirely relevant, that is:
"Historic England is supportive of both the document and the vision and objectives set out in it. The emphasis on the conservation of local distinctiveness through good design and the protection of locally significant buildings, green spaces and townscape character is to be applauded. We also highly commend the approaches taken in the Plan to defining areas of local character in order to ensure that the design of new development contributes to the conservation and enhancement of the local historic environment."

Beyond those comments we have no further substantive comments to make on what Historic England considers to be a very good example of community led planning.

I can confirm that HS2 Ltd have no objection to the content contained in the plan, However I would recommend that the community follow the progress of Phase One of HS2 at the following address
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/high-speed-rail-london-west-midlands-bill.

Executive summary (for full text see attachment)

1. Planning Policies at national, county and local level give a very clear priority for sustainable means of transport including public transport and especially walking and cycling. A clear statement in the Plan giving priority to these would have numerous benefits.

2. A continuation of existing practice that allows the car to dominate Kenilworth town will lead to deterioration in the quality of Kenilworth as a place to live, work and visit. This is because of increased congestion, noise, pollution, and above all fears of personal safety of pedestrians and others using the town centre, including children, residents reliant on mobility scooters and disabled people, folk using prams or pushchairs and cyclists.

3. New developments on land east of Kenilworth and the proposed secondary school should be designed as exemplars of what can be achieved elsewhere in the town.

4. The new development on land east of Kenilworth needs to be linked to a rolling programme of improvements throughout the town.

5. The vision of a town where for many walking and cycling become the norm is practical and achievable, and would make Kenilworth a more attractive place to live, shop and work.

6. The plan should contain a specific policy on air quality in Kenilworth. We suggest and Air Quality neutral approach, and spell out some feasible options.

Having reviewed the plans online I was unable to find any references to support individuals who would like to undertake a self build project.

The government initiative to support self build projects has had little impact, as there is zero power given to councils to actually make land available either directly or by imposing conditions on developers to release land.

I feel that this is a great opportunity to address these shortcomings, and as part of the councils plans I would like to see plots available for self build projects.

When reviewing my comments please consider them with respect to the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act of 2015. thank you Parmjit.
Summary of the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015
A Bill to place a duty on local authorities to keep a register of individuals and community groups who have expressed an interest in acquiring land to bring forward self-build and custom-build projects and to take account of and make provision for the interests of those on such registers in developing their housing initiatives and their local plans; to allow volume house builders to include self-build and custom-build projects as contributing towards their affordable housing obligations, when in partnership for this purpose with a Registered Social Landlord; and for connected purposes.

See attachment.

In summary:

National Grid has no high voltage or high pressure apparatus within the neighbourhood plan area.

Kenilworth Regulation 16 - Submission

Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 06/04/2018.

Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

Natural England is a statutory consultee in neighbourhood planning and must be consulted on draft neighbourhood development plans by the Parish/Town Councils or Neighbourhood Forums where they consider our interests would be affected by the proposals made.

Natural England has no further comment to make on this plan at this stage; however, should significant changes have been made since the Regulation 14 submission, please consult us again if you consider that you require a more detailed response.

For any further consultations on your plan, please contact: consultations@naturalengland.org.uk.

Thank you for giving Severn Trent Water the opportunity to comment on Kenilworth Neighbourhood Plan - Submission Version consultation.

We currently have no specific comments to make however, please keep us informed as your plans develop and when appropriate we will be able to offer a more detailed comments and advice. I am in discussions with Andrew Cornfoot at Warwick DC regarding the sewerage strategy to go alongside the proposed new developments.

We have attached some general information and advice for your information.

See attachment

In summary:

Catesby Estates Plc's land interests fall within Warwick Local Plan H40 allocation for residential development, to which draft policy KP4 refers. These detailed representations are concerned with matters of detail rather than principle, and refer to the following policies: KP4, KP14 and KP15.

KP4 - Land East of Kenilworth
Concern is raised in respect of specific parts of the policy on the basis that, as drafted, it does not fully reflect the adopted Local Plan policy and does not therefore comply with the basic conditions. These points relate to the requirement for a Development Brief and comprehensive development, primary school provision, the requirement for self build plots, flexibility of the proposed green corridor, and the historic environment and heritage assets.

KP14 - General design principles

Bullet (a) should reflect WDLP policies HE1-H6 and NPPF para 126.
Bullet (j) should be amended to reflect national guidance in the NPPF.

As drafted the NP does not meet the Basic Conditions 1) and e) and is not in conformity with national and local planning policies.

KP15 - local heritage assets

Propose amending the text to:
"Proposals that affect directly or indirectly a non-designated heritage asset should be accompanied by a balanced judgement of the scale of harm or loss against the significance of the asset, in accordance with the NPPF."

See attachment.

In summary:
Gleeson welcomes the continued support for land east of Kenilworth (Policy KP4).

We consider that basic conditions (b) and (c) are satisfied.

Gleeson is supportive of the assessment contained within chapter 5 of the Basic Conditions Statement.

Supportive of the assessment that Basic Condition (f) has been satisfied.

Policy KP4: Land east of Kenilworth

Gleeson is generally satisfied with the approach prescribed in KP4. We acknowledge that criterion (a) has been modified to better reflect the provisions of Policy DS12 of the Local Plan and the appropriateness of a northern parcel location for a primary school. This policy rewording is supported.

Gleeson maintains its objection to criterion (e) for the provision of 5% self build/custom build plots. The 5% is an arbitrary percentage which may not be appropriate and may impact delivery across the site. The percentage should be proportionate to Warwick District Council's Self Build register of Interest, and the policy reworded to introduce flexibility.

Note the addition of criterion (g) which requires residential roads to be designed to a 20mph standard and prioritise pedestrians and cyclists. Gleeson generally support this approach.

As a general point, recommend that the wording of paragraph 5.20 be amended so that the housing figures stated are not viewed as a cap.

Suggest reference to policy DS12 of the Local Plan, specifically identifying the possibility of residual land after the development of the educational uses.

See attachment

Summary:

Policy KP14 - Whilst Gladman recognise the importance of high quality design, planning policies should not be overly prescriptive. Suggest more flexibility is provided in the wording to ensure that high quality inclusive design is not compromised by aesthetic requirements alone. We consider to do so could impact upon on the viability of proposed residential developments, and suggest regard should be given to paragraph 60 of the NPPF.

Concerned that in its current form, the plan does not comply with basic conditions (a) and (e).

Sworders, act on behalf of the landowners at Thickthorn, which forms part of the land to the east of
Kenilworth that is the subject of an adopted strategic Allocation in the adopted Warwick District Local
Plan 2011-2029. We are grateful to have been given this opportunity to submit our comments on the
submitted draft Kenilworth Local Plan to the Examiner.
Firstly, we applaud the qualifying body for their significant efforts in preparing the draft
neighbourhood plan. Our comments below are made in the spirit of supporting the neighbourhood
plan group to ensure it meets the Basic Conditions and can proceed to referendum. These comments
should be read alongside the representations submitted by Framptons on behalf of the Southern
Parcel Landowners in August 2017, a copy of which is attached for ease of reference.
However, we do believe further changes are needed to some of the policies contained in the
Neighbourhood Plan in order that the Basic Conditions are met and can proceed to referendum. We
highlight, in particular, Paragraph 184 of the NPPF, which states (inter alia) that neighbourhood plans
should:
1. be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan;
2. reflect the Local Plan policies and plan positively to support them; and
3. should not undermine the strategic policies of the Local Plans.
We also give our suggestions on possible changes to the policy wording to help resolve the issues we
raise, which are shown in track changes.
Draft Neighbourhood Plan Policy KP4 Land East of Kenilworth
The draft Neighbourhood Plan rightly identifies the strategic allocations of the Local Plan as being strategic policies, which includes Local Plan policies H40, ED2, H06 and E1 which relate to the strategic housing and employment allocations. Together, these allocations mirrors the neighbourhood plan site named as 'Land East of Kenilworth', under draft Policy KP4.
These sites have been allocated in the Local Plan to ensure that the District's objectively assessed housing and employment needs are met in full over the Plan period. Therefore, it is important that the neighbourhood plan does not include policy requirements that are not supported by robust technical evidence, which are overly-prescriptive and consequentially could undermine and threaten the delivery of these sites and the strategic policies of the 2017 adopted Local Plan.
The views of the local community are clearly important in the preparation of the Development Brief or Layout and Design Statement that is required by the adopted Local Plan strategic policy (DS15) for the Land East of Kenilworth. The principles set out in criteria a) - h) set out in draft Policy KP4 are therefore helpful in this regard. However, the layout of sites must be informed by up to date and robust evidence on the technical constraints and opportunities and there is no technical supporting evidence provided to demonstrate that those aspirations are deliverable. There is also some conflict in the wording of draft Policy KP4 with national and adopted local plan policy, including Local Plan Policy DS15 (Comprehensive Development of Strategic Sites).
Therefore, we believe that the following changes to the wording of draft policy KP4, which we show in track changes below, are required in order that the Neighbourhood Plan meets the basic conditions:
Policy KP4: Land to the East of Kenilworth
Development proposals for housing and other uses on land released from the Green Belt east of Kenilworth as shown on the Policies Map 5.2 will be supported where they represent a comprehensive development scheme for the land in accordance with a Development Brief Produced by Warwick District Councilor a Layout and Design Statement to be approved by Warwick District Council, in accordance with Local Plan Policy DS15.
We strongly believe that the remainder of the wording of Policy KP4 needs to be deleted in order to ensure conformity with national and local policy.
Recognising that the views of the local community are important in the formulation of proposals, there may nonetheless be merit in including the aspirations identified in this draft policy within the supporting text of the policy. If this approach is preferred, we consider that some changes to the wording are needed in order to be consistent with national and local policy and also to account forthe notable absence of evidence to support some of the principles outlined, including relating to the detail of access and layout of the site and the proportion of self-build/custom build homes sought. Therefore, we suggest the following:
Suggested Supporting Text to Policy KP4
When preparing the development brief or a Layout and Design Statement, consideration should be given to the views of the local community, including and comprise the following principles:
a. The provision of land for a secondary school, sixth form college and if deemed the most appropriate location a new primary school within the allocation and/or financial contributions on the northern parcel of the land;
b. The provision of land for a new primary school on the southern land parcel if deemed an appropriate location;
c. The provision of a local centre comprising a mix of A1-A5 commercial uses and D1 community facilities, with consideration being given to the possible inclusion of including possible medical and youth facilities and places of worship to meet identified local needs that are also accessible to the existing residential areas of eastern Kenilworth;
d. The potential for providing a distinctThe provision of a distinct area at Thickthorn for B1 and suitable B2 business uses only with direct vehicular access to A452 Leamington Road or direct to the A46 junction, the layout and design of which must enhance the entrance of the town from the A46 junction and must be compatible in uses with the amenities of adjoining residential areas;
e. Opportunities for tThe provision of serviced plots for self-build and custom build, not exceeding 5% of the total number of the open market homes as serviced plots for self-build and custom-build dwellings, having regard to the latest evidence on demand, including the self-build register of interest and the strategic policies contained within the adopted Warwick District Local Plan 2011-2029;
f. Consideration to the potential for aThe adoption of highways strategy based on anindependent access to each of the land parcels that allows for an arrangement of uses and access routes to connect the development with the existing built up area at multiple points by walking, cycling, public transport and car;
g. The potential for residential roads within the developments to be are designed to a 20mph standard and givinge priority to pedestrians and cyclists;
h. The provision of a green corridor through the various land parcels that, where possible:
Is arranged in such a way as to benefit the new development and the existing community
* Functions as a linear route linking the school sites and local centre
* Comprises and connects to pedestrian and cycle routes, public open space, the provision of new allotments and other forms of green infrastructure
* Incorporates Rocky Lane and Glasshouse Wood path and other public rights of way and footpaths on the land as a means of improving access from the town to Stoneleigh and the River Avon
* Retains and integrates as much of the existing wooded areas as Glasshouse Spinney, Crewe Lane Arboretum, the spinneys at Thickthorn and Jordan Closes and other landscape features as practical
* The creation of a soft edge along Crewe Lane, retaining the bell of tress and a similar frontage to Glasshouse Lane
* The protection of the residential amenity of the existing development along Leamington Road, Glasshouse Lane, Birches Land and the roads off towards the developments including the planted verges in such areas
* The layout and appearance of the development shall minimise harm to and where appropriate enhance the historic environment and heritage assets on or near to the site
* The agreement of an environmental strategy to establish how the development of the land will provide for opportunities for deliver a net biodiversity gain, will manage the sustainable drainage of the land and will avoid harm to the setting of adjoining heritage assets
* The agreement of a phasing plan and delivery strategy that will enable self-contained phases of development to come forward and will set out the thresholds by which the provision of site infrastructure and non-housing sites will be required.
SELF-BUILD AND CUSTOM BUILD HOUSING (DRAFT POLICY KP4)
We note that principle/criterion (e) of draft Policy KP4 relates to the provision of self-build and custom-build housing on the Land East of Kenilworth, which is a strategic allocation in the adopted Warwick District Local Plan.
In addition to the comments above, we object to the inclusion of a policy that would require a specific proportion of self-build and custom-build housing from a strategic allocation.
The adopted Local Plan Policy H15 encourages Neighbourhood Plans to support the delivery of self-build and custom-build housing through the identification of suitable and sustainable sites. The policy and supporting text of Policy H15 that this may include supporting opportunities for self-build and custom-build housing on strategic allocations, the supporting text of that policy is seeking to encourage the identification of specific smaller sites in suitable and sustainable locations. Notwithstanding this, there appears to have been no site selection process followed by the qualifying body in deciding what opportunities may exist in the area for self- and custom-build housing.
To instead rely solely on the District's strategic allocations will not achieve this objective and also risks the delivery of homes that are needed to meet the objectively assessed housing needs of the district and therefore undermining the strategic policies of the Local Plan.
There is also no evidence to support a policy that requires 5% of the homes on the site to be delivered as self-build and custom-build plots. The only information provided is from a latest Register of Interest and, as the District Council has noted in its comments, is a snapshot in time. We would add that a register of interest is not the same as evidence of demand and so if it transpires that there is no demand when those plots are marketed, they will not be delivered. Land East of Kenilworth is required to meet the District's objectively assessed housing needs and so this would therefore affect housing delivery and meeting housing needs of the District, undermining the strategic policies of the Local Plan.
On this basis, whilst we agree opportunities for self-build and custom-build housing should be encouraged, it is not appropriate to rely on an overly-prescriptive requirement for a specific proportion of homes to be delivered from the strategic allocations, including Land East of Kenilworth. Should the Neighbourhood Plan include a policy on self-build and custom-build housing, we would suggest a separate policy which is worded as follows:
Proposals for self-build and custom build housing will be supported in sustainable and suitable locations subject to compliance with all other relevant policy requirements in the Local Plan, Neighbourhood Plan and national policy.
CONCEPT PLAN - PAGE 37
For the reasons set out above, the concept plan on page 37 of the submitted Neighbourhood Plan should be deleted to avoid confusion amongst the local community as to what the approved development brief for the Land East of Kenilworth is. We note that the Qualifying Body has confirmed that this will be replaced, and has been superseded by, the Development Brief requirement for the Land to the East of Kenilworth that is provided for by adopted Local Plan Policy DS15.
DRAFT POLICY KP13: PARKING STANDARDS
As drafted, this policy would place rigid parking requirements for new developments which conflicts with recently updated parking standards for the District and have not been justified through evidence submitted with the neighbourhood plan.
Parking standards are not intended to be minimum requirements and flexibility is important to ensure that parking requirements are considered on a site-by-site basis. Flexibility in the policy wording is also important, including to ensure that it can reflect potential advances in technology and travel behaviour. The local authority also has up-to-date Local Plan policies and parking standards and which allow for the specific locational and site-specific requirements to be taken into account.
In the absence of evidence to justify a departure from those standards, we therefore believe that draft Policy KP13 needs to be deleted.
DRAFT POLICY KP14: GENERAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES
We ask that our comments on the following design principles are taken into account in the examination of the Neighbourhood Plan and any subsequent modifications that are made:
Criterion a. (Heritage Assets)
This conflicts with the NPPF (paras. 128 - 134) and strategic policy DS4 of the Local Plan. Using track changes, we recommend that this is changed to read:
The significance of any heritage assets and their settings in the locality. and how the scheme will sustain and enhance that significance
Criterion f (Resource Use)
Building Regulations, which adopts a fabric-first approach, provides the starting point when considering opportunities minimise resource use. Whilst it is important to look for opportunities to minimise carbon dioxide emissions and resource use, including through the inclusion of renewable energy technologies, it is important that consideration is given to the feasibility and viability of options when designing a development. This needs to be reflected in the policy wording. We have used track changes to show our recommendation on the change to the wording of criterion f. that is needed:
Opportunities to minimise rResource use should be explored is minimised and, including through the incorporation of the design incorporates features (including renewable energy) that lead to low or zero carbon dioxide emissions in use, taking into account feasibility and viability;
Criterion i (Gardens)
Gardens are not always desired or appropriate. As drafted, this could prevent some housing needs being met, including apartments. It may also prevent smaller, more constrained sites from coming forward in the neighbourhood plan area, such as brownfield or derelict sites in the town centre. We recommend the following change (shown in track changes):
For residential development, where appropriate, has a garden to meet the needs of existing and future residents, whether private or communal
DRAFT POLICY KP15: LOCAL HERITAGE ASSETS
The comments made in the representations submitted on behalf of the landowners in August 2017 remain applicable and we ask that they are taken into account as part of the Examination process - A copy is appended to this letter.
We trust that the above comments, which we believe are important to ensure that the neighbourhood plan meets the basic conditions and will also be effective in guiding future development proposals in the town. We would welcome a further discussion if there are any queries or the Examiner or Qualifying Body would like to discuss anything further.