Proposed Modifications January 2016

Object

Representation ID: 69029

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: CEG Steel/Pittaway

Agent: Nexus Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DS20 identifies a Local Plan review mechanism that will be triggered if a range of circumstances arise, generally relating to issues that would affect the District as a whole and are not necessarily unique to Warwick, i.e. changes in national planning policy.
WDC should require the preparation of an Area Action Plan (AAP) for the wider area south of Coventry, rather than dealing with it through a partial review of the Local Plan.
Policy DS20 "Review of the Local Plan" is not „justified‟ by failing to be the most appropriate strategy for the District.

Object

Representation ID: 69236

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: CEG Steel/Pittaway

Agent: Nexus Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy DS20 identifies a Local Plan review mechanism that will be triggered if a range of circumstances arise, generally relating to issues that would affect the District as a whole and are not necessarily unique to Warwick, i.e. changes in national planning policy.
WDC should require the preparation of an Area Action Plan (AAP) for the wider area south of Coventry, rather than dealing with it through a partial review of the Local Plan.
Policy DS20 "Review of the Local Plan" is not „justified‟ by failing to be the most appropriate strategy for the District

Object

Representation ID: 69238

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: CEG Steel/Pittaway

Agent: Nexus Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Support Council's findings that site S1 fails to adequately fulfil the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. However, consider that site S1 should be identified as an allocation of up to 900 dwellings, rather than safeguarded. This, in combination with site allocation H42, would enable the comprehensive planning of a development for circa 1,500 dwellings in the Westwood Heath area. Furthermore, it would ensure that a more successful and integrated masterplan is developed and that on and off site infrastructure is appropriately planned.

Object

Representation ID: 69240

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: CEG Steel/Pittaway

Agent: Nexus Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Preparation of Development Brief including safeguarded land S1 is not a viable option and would be allocating / making land use assumptions on future policy. Could clearly be construed as going beyond the remit of supplementary planning documents or other guidance in detailing matters which should be reserved for local development documents.
With safeguarded land, not possible to determine wider community facility needs or impacts - Council cannot force owners to do so.
Development Brief required by Policy DS15 for this area would have no planning status, would lead to piecemeal development of a significant growth area.

Object

Representation ID: 69241

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: CEG Steel/Pittaway

Agent: Nexus Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Preparation of Development Brief including safeguarded land S1 is not a viable option and would be allocating / making land use assumptions on future policy. Could clearly be construed as going beyond the remit of supplementary planning documents or other guidance in detailing matters which should be reserved for local development documents.
With safeguarded land, not possible to determine wider community facility needs or impacts - Council cannot force owners to do so.
Development Brief required by Policy DS15 for this area would have no planning status, would lead to piecemeal development of a significant growth area.

Object

Representation ID: 69246

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: CEG Steel/Pittaway

Agent: Nexus Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

OMISSION site:
Council should allocate both H42 and S1 as a single strategic allocation, with a restriction on dwelling delivery in advance of the aforementioned highway interventions being delivered. It is considered that this is fully consistent with the NPPF and, as set out later in this submission, would provide a much more logical and robust framework for the comprehensive planning of the area.

Object

Representation ID: 69249

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: CEG Steel/Pittaway

Agent: Nexus Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Council should allocate both H42 and S1 as a single strategic allocation, with a restriction on dwelling delivery in advance of the aforementioned highway interventions being delivered. It is considered that this is fully consistent with the NPPF and, as set out later in this submission, would provide a much more logical and robust framework for the comprehensive planning of the area.

Object

Representation ID: 69252

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: CEG Steel/Pittaway

Agent: Nexus Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Council should allocate both H42 and S1 as a single strategic allocation, with a restriction on dwelling occupation in advance of the required highway interventions being delivered. This is fully consistent with NPPF and would provide a much more logical and robust framework for the comprehensive planning of the area. Would enable allocation of a larger proportion of housing where significant pressures exist.
STA didn't consider more equitable distribution between Westwood Heath and Kings Hill. This would enable a reduced reliance upon any single site and limit risk that housing trajectory not realised

Object

Representation ID: 69253

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: CEG Steel/Pittaway

Agent: Nexus Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Council should allocate both H42 and S1 as a single strategic allocation, with a restriction on dwelling occupation in advance of the required highway interventions being delivered. This is fully consistent with NPPF and would provide a much more logical and robust framework for the comprehensive planning of the area. Would enable allocation of a larger proportion of housing where significant pressures exist.
STA didn't consider more equitable distribution between Westwood Heath and Kings Hill. This would enable a reduced reliance upon any single site and limit risk that housing trajectory not realised

Object

Representation ID: 69255

Received: 22/04/2016

Respondent: CEG Steel/Pittaway

Agent: Nexus Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Council should allocate both H42 and S1 as a single strategic allocation, with a restriction on dwelling delivery in advance of the required highway interventions being delivered. Consistent with NPPF and would provide logical and robust framework for comprehensive planning of area.
Council's current strategy likely to result in multiple housing schemes planned and delivered in isolation, not in the spirit of the emerging policy and supporting text. The only way to secure a comprehensive scheme is to allocate both sites and require the production of a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to establish key masterplanning principles, infrastructure delivery and phasing.