Alternative Sites Consultation

Search representations

Results for Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd search

New search New search

Object

Alternative Sites Consultation

Do you support or object to the development of Kenilworth Wardens Cricket Club, Glasshouse Lane, Kenilworth?

Representation ID: 44552

Received: 06/05/2010

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Barton Willmore

Representation Summary:

Site 1a and 1b - do not meet the strategy set out in the emerging RSS which directs growth to Warwick and Leamington Spa which are identified as a Settlement of Significant Development (SSD) and this designation does not include Kenilworth.

The existing site set out in the Preferred Options is of excessive size in relation to the role of Kenilworth in the region and need can not be demonstrated for a second site in Kenilworth given that the emphasis should be on meeting local needs only.

Full text:

Site 1a and 1b - Whilst the emerging RSS does not form part of the Development Plan, it is a clear indication of the direction of travel in meeting the growth agenda. Within the emerging RSS, it is Warwick and Leamington Spa which are identified as a Settlement of Significant Development (SSD) and this designation does not include Kenilworth. We have previously set out in our representations that the previously considered Preferred Option for Kenilworth is of excessive size in relation to the role of Kenilworth in the region. We do not consider that a need can be demonstrated for a second site in Kenilworth given that the emphasis should be on meeting local needs only.

Site 3 - The development of this site would result in the gap between Cubbington and Lillington being completely eroded and the merging of these settlements. The site is located within the open Green Belt and we consider that this site fulfils an important role in maintaining openness between the two areas, in accordance with PPG2.
Furthermore, the site appears to have access only on to a small point at Offchurch Road which is insufficient to serve a site of this site, particularly given the small scale nature of this site and the relatively small length of site frontage in this area. It may be that there are secondary points of access through some existing roads in Lillington however we would query the ability of these roads to accommodate a development of 1,000 plus dwellings.

Site 4 - This site submission appears to be based purely on land ownership as oppose to consideration of a suitable development site. The parcels north of the Warwick by-pass are illogical development sites, extending development beyond a clearly established development boundary in this area. Furthermore, the adopted Local Plan Proposals Map shows over half of the land to the south of the bypass as forming part of a historic park / garden which should therefore be protected from development.

Object

Alternative Sites Consultation

Do you support or object to the development of Glebe Farm, Cubbington?

Representation ID: 44553

Received: 06/05/2010

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Barton Willmore

Representation Summary:

Site 3 - The development of this site would result in the gap between Cubbington and Lillington being completely eroded and the merging of these settlements. The site is located within the open Green Belt and we consider that this site fulfils an important role in maintaining openness between the two areas, in accordance with PPG2.
Furthermore, the site appears to have access only on to a small point at Offchurch Road which is insufficient to serve a site of this site, particularly given the small scale nature of this site and the relatively small length of site frontage in this area. It may be that there are secondary points of access through some existing roads in Lillington however we would query the ability of these roads to accommodate a development of 1,000 plus dwellings.

Full text:

Site 1a and 1b - Whilst the emerging RSS does not form part of the Development Plan, it is a clear indication of the direction of travel in meeting the growth agenda. Within the emerging RSS, it is Warwick and Leamington Spa which are identified as a Settlement of Significant Development (SSD) and this designation does not include Kenilworth. We have previously set out in our representations that the previously considered Preferred Option for Kenilworth is of excessive size in relation to the role of Kenilworth in the region. We do not consider that a need can be demonstrated for a second site in Kenilworth given that the emphasis should be on meeting local needs only.

Site 3 - The development of this site would result in the gap between Cubbington and Lillington being completely eroded and the merging of these settlements. The site is located within the open Green Belt and we consider that this site fulfils an important role in maintaining openness between the two areas, in accordance with PPG2.
Furthermore, the site appears to have access only on to a small point at Offchurch Road which is insufficient to serve a site of this site, particularly given the small scale nature of this site and the relatively small length of site frontage in this area. It may be that there are secondary points of access through some existing roads in Lillington however we would query the ability of these roads to accommodate a development of 1,000 plus dwellings.

Site 4 - This site submission appears to be based purely on land ownership as oppose to consideration of a suitable development site. The parcels north of the Warwick by-pass are illogical development sites, extending development beyond a clearly established development boundary in this area. Furthermore, the adopted Local Plan Proposals Map shows over half of the land to the south of the bypass as forming part of a historic park / garden which should therefore be protected from development.

Object

Alternative Sites Consultation

Do you support or object to the development of Loes Farm, Guy's Cliffe, Warwick?

Representation ID: 44554

Received: 06/05/2010

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Agent: Barton Willmore

Representation Summary:

Site 4 - This site submission appears to be based purely on land ownership as oppose to consideration of a suitable development site. The parcels north of the Warwick by-pass are illogical development sites, extending development beyond a clearly established development boundary in this area. Furthermore, the adopted Local Plan Proposals Map shows over half of the land to the south of the bypass as forming part of a historic park / garden which should therefore be protected from development.

Full text:

Site 1a and 1b - Whilst the emerging RSS does not form part of the Development Plan, it is a clear indication of the direction of travel in meeting the growth agenda. Within the emerging RSS, it is Warwick and Leamington Spa which are identified as a Settlement of Significant Development (SSD) and this designation does not include Kenilworth. We have previously set out in our representations that the previously considered Preferred Option for Kenilworth is of excessive size in relation to the role of Kenilworth in the region. We do not consider that a need can be demonstrated for a second site in Kenilworth given that the emphasis should be on meeting local needs only.

Site 3 - The development of this site would result in the gap between Cubbington and Lillington being completely eroded and the merging of these settlements. The site is located within the open Green Belt and we consider that this site fulfils an important role in maintaining openness between the two areas, in accordance with PPG2.
Furthermore, the site appears to have access only on to a small point at Offchurch Road which is insufficient to serve a site of this site, particularly given the small scale nature of this site and the relatively small length of site frontage in this area. It may be that there are secondary points of access through some existing roads in Lillington however we would query the ability of these roads to accommodate a development of 1,000 plus dwellings.

Site 4 - This site submission appears to be based purely on land ownership as oppose to consideration of a suitable development site. The parcels north of the Warwick by-pass are illogical development sites, extending development beyond a clearly established development boundary in this area. Furthermore, the adopted Local Plan Proposals Map shows over half of the land to the south of the bypass as forming part of a historic park / garden which should therefore be protected from development.

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.