Publication Draft

Object

Representation ID: 7135

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Friends of the Earth

We believe the Consultation is premature, as the Regional Spatial Strategy Inspection in Public has
only just finished, and it will be many months before the inspector's report is published. The
Consultation should follow on and respond to these findings.
We realise that the Council is under pressure from government policies to allocate more new
development within the district than perhaps it would ideally prefer. We would encourage the
authority to resist such pressure especially as excessive development in the District will undermine
the main objective of the Regional Spatial Strategy to regenerate the major urban centres in the
region.

Comment

Representation ID: 7136

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Friends of the Earth

We generally believe that the extent of urban expansion and housing numbers proposed is not
necessary, but we are pleased to see that the procedure for selection of sites for development has
generally followed the criteria set out in our response to the last stage of the consultation process.

Comment

Representation ID: 7137

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Friends of the Earth

It is stated here that the population projections are "based on the...continued movement of people
into the district from the major cities of the region to the District." Please note that one of the main
aims of the Regional Spatial Strategy is to discourage people from moving from the major urban
areas out into the rest of the Region. It is also likely that in the future as fuel prices rise, it will
become less desirable for people to commute long distances.

Comment

Representation ID: 7138

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Friends of the Earth

'To maintain .... growing economy...'. believe the word 'growing' should be omitted as growth per se unnecessary and unsustainable.
'...encourage sustainable growth...' . As above. Should be amended to read '...encourage a sustainable economy...'
Policy should encourage development only to meet local need, not encourage businesses/people to move into District.
Support Preferred Option, with exception of allocation 'if required....Kings Hill, Finham..' This wording too vague and seems to be discrepancy between Coventry's statement and that of WDC. Wording in WDC consultation seems to suggest that Finham would be to serve needs of Coventry. City state land is not needed and is down to WDC whether land is allocated.
Need an agreed joint policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 7139

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Friends of the Earth

Doubts whether proposed increase in retail floorspace necessary or desirable. In assessing the need for additional retail floorspace in or adjacent to existing centres, local authority should not simply consider quantitative need for floorspace but also assess format in which additional floorspace will contribute to vibrancy and diversity of existing retail centres.
Large format stores on edge of tc's can equally damage vitality of town centres. Essential that threshold adopted restricting development of large scale retail outlets that would otherwise damage existing retail centres.

Object

Representation ID: 7140

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Friends of the Earth

Object to allowing market housing in villages and hamlets, but support policy for affordable
housing restricted in perpetuity to residents who have grown up in the area. Support a policy which positively encourages provision of jobs in rural communities.
Will become less desirable to live in
countryside as petrol costs rise and value of rural property declines and therefore become more affordable for local people.
Concerned there is no policy included to ensure that enough agricultural land is protected to ensure the country and district can feed itself in future

Support

Representation ID: 7141

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Friends of the Earth

Strongly support higher densities across all sites.
Recommend minimum acceptable density levels should be included in policy document.
There are many recent residential schemes where 100 to 150 dwellings per hectare are quite
common. Possible to achieve such densities with the benefit of good design without
compromising the character of our towns and the quality of public open spaces, as is confirmed in PPS3. Paragraph 10.2 in the consultation document confirms that '...household size is getting smaller with more people living alone...'. This in turn allows higher densities, and means that there is considerably less need for green field sites to be used.

Comment

Representation ID: 7142

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Friends of the Earth

Recommend more proactive policy in regard to reuse of vacant properties and promotion of 'homes above shops' as part of comprehensive package to revitalise urban areas of district. In particular there is a large amount of vacant accommodation above shops in Leamington town centre.

Comment

Representation ID: 7143

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Friends of the Earth

Suggests that large housing sites are more able to accommodate housing for older people. In
reality town centre or edge of centre sites are much more suitable for older people's housing, being closer to more facilties. The larger size of buildings which usually accommodate older people's housing are also much easier architecturally to accommodate in town centres rather than in lowdensity low-rise suburban locations.

Comment

Representation ID: 7144

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Friends of the Earth

Suggests that one option for requirement of affordable housing '...would be to lower the
requirement to 30% given the current economic circumstances but to review this once the housing market were stronger..' This would be very difficult to administer in practice and would simply create a shortfall in affordable provision in short term.