Full text:
WARWICK DISTRICT COUNCIL - NEW LOCAL PLAN - PREFERRED OPTIONS - MAY 2012
PROPOSED SITE FOR HOUSING OFF WESTWOOD HEATH ROAD
We refer to the above published on WDC's website June '12 regarding sites options now being considered for development.
CPCA objects to the possible housing / 'employment' development at the identified site off Westwood Heath Rd. for the following reasons:
1 Conurbation
Preservation of the green 'gap' between Coventry and Kenilworth is essential. Development of this site would be incremental to its closure - a further progression towards a 'Linear City' (fad of Planners in the 60's) and a grisly urban sprawl extending from Nuneaton in the north to Warwick / Stratford in the south.
To quote your Plan (para 16.1) "... Warwick District ...seeks to prevent urban sprawl that would prejudice...............the open countryside between ..........Kenilworth and ......Coventry and Solihull".
2 Inadequate infrastructure
Peak hour congestion demonstrates the inadequacy of the local road network to cope with existing traffic
The Traffic Report supporting the expansion of Warwick University was based on data some 8 - 10 years out of date. Optimistically it assumed 'low' / 'medium' growth of non - University traffic on local / trunk roads respectively and warns of '...congestion to an unacceptable level even allowing for improvements to local junctions...'.The 40% expansion of the University was considered in isolation - without regard to additional traffic attributable to other major developments planned in the vicinity (includes Tesco, Canley redevelopment, University Technical College).
Development of this site, inevitably, would precipitate a further large draw of traffic onto Westwood Heath Rd, Kirby Corner Rd. and Sir Henry Parkes Rd. to access the A45 and the City Centre. Peak hour gridlock is readily predictable.
Again 'Options' fails to address the issue of infrastructure for which, in the T.R. for W.U., it is recorded that "there is no local government support...commitment.." (presumably WCC / WDC)
3 Lack of Transparency
Before inviting comment we think that Options should have indicated e.g.:
* the site area & density of housing envisaged
* probable type, size and category of house units.
* height / number of storeys.
* the character and scale of any "employment development" envisaged
4 Affordable Housing Content
This is an 'edge-of-city' site. We believe Coventry C.C.'s requirement for 'affordable' housing content is 25%; WDC apparently insists on 50%. A higher proportion of affordable housing in rural districts to redress a perceived shortage and enable the lower paid to continue to live in their locality is understandable. The converse appertains to this site - Coventry, we believe, has a surfeit of such units - but a dearth of 'aspirational' housing.
We detect the 'numbers game' with a high % of 'affordable' (small units, low space standards, high density, low specification) housing to achieve targets whilst closure of the green gap and the cumulative effect of traffic on existing congestion is conveniently overlooked.
The stated aspiration to retain low cost housing (even publicly owned) in perpetuity seems naive: remember the 'right to buy' ?
We would object to gypsies and travellers utilising the site due to its proximity to existing housing.
5 Employment
The Options primarily considers Housing numbers in isolation. Unemployment data, employment opportunities, a contracting economy, the demise of the Euro, its impact on future demand etc all seem to have been ignored.
It might be reasonable to assume that 880+ houses would require employment for 880+ people. Does anyone know where these jobs / employers are? Does WDC know?
Surely it is employment which creates the demand for housing - not the converse.
6 HS2
W. D. C., like many, may be opposed to HS2 but it seems reckless in the extreme blithely to assume that it will not proceed. Should it do so, its proximity to this site may well ensure low cost housing in perpetuity - but probably only for the desperate.
7 Site - Kenilworth East
We consider that the identified site extends too far north such as to threaten the Kenilworth / Coventry gap. For this reason we object to this site being developed as shown.
