COVENTRY CORE STRATEGY

INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION

TUESDAY 10 NOVEMBER 2009 to FRIDAY 4 DECEMBER 2009

To be held at

DIAMOND ROOMS 1 AND 2, THE COUNCIL HOUSE, EARL STREET, COVENTRY CV1 5RR

THIRD DRAFT (12.10.09)

All timings, apart from the initial start time on each day, are approximate at this stage.

PROGRAMME

(RTS) ROUND TABLE SESSION

(IH) INFORMAL HEARING COVENTRY CORE STRATEGY TUESDAY 10 DAY 1 NOVEMBER

Respondents Deadline for Further 13 October 2009 Submissions (4 weeks)

Council Deadline for Responses 27 October 2009 (2 weeks)

10.00 Inspector’s opening

10.15 Council’s opening

10.30 RTS Matter 1 – CS Sections 1 - 5 Structure/Vision/Strategy/Sustainability

Attendees: Coventry City Council, GOWM, CPRE Coventry University, University of Warwick The Queen's College [Pegasus Planning], Merle Gering Andrew/Gill Walton, Santokh Khera, Alana Collis, Patricia Freeman

Issues: i) Does the CS provide an appropriate spatial vision for the future of the city over the plan period, consistent with national guidance in PPS 12, the Regional Spatial Strategy [RSS] and the Sustainable Community Strategy [SCS] ?

ii) Will the strategy satisfactorily and sustainably deliver the new development needed to meet the city’s share of growth in the West Midlands, including through the allocation of a number of strategic sites or, if not, why not and what needs to be changed ?

iii) Are there any objectives, policies or proposals that are not consistent with national guidance and/or regional policies and, if so, is there a local justification supported by a robust and credible evidence base ?

iv) Is there a clear “audit trail” demonstrating how and why the preferred strategy was selected, including in terms of consultation with the public, representative bodies, service and infrastructure providers and other interested parties ?

v) Has the CS been the subject of suitably comprehensive and satisfactory sustainability appraisal [SA], strategic environmental assessment [SEA] and an appropriate assessment [AA] and if not, what else needs to be done ?

LUNCH 12.30

13.30 RTS Matter 2 – Employment [CS SG14 – SG18] Attendees: Coventry City Council Warwick District Council, Rugby Borough Council Nuneaton and Bedworth District Council, CPRE Coventry University, University of Warwick Advantage West Midlands, Acetate [CB Richard Ellis] Meggitt plc [King Sturge], Mondial [Barton Willmore] Finham Residents Association, D C Birch, C P McDonald

Issues: i) Are the policies and proposals concerning the local economy and employment consistent with national guidance [including emerging PPS 4] and the relevant regional policies ? ii) Will they deliver the levels of new employment sought or, if not, what else needs to be done and/or should more [or less] land be identified, for example by allocating new greenfield sites or removing areas from the GB ? iii) Should the CS identify a Major Investment Site [MIS] and/or a Regional Logistics Site [RLS] ? iv) Should more [or less] cross border employment land be identified over and above the Peugeot/Ryton site ? v) Should the contribution of employment opportunities at Coventry Airport be acknowledged in the CS ? vi) Is the employment allocation at Kerseley justified by the available evidence ? vii) Is it appropriate in principle and reasonable in practice to seek to safeguard so many Strategic Employment allocations and/or should more flexible criteria [such as in relation to economic viability and the percentage of residential development] be used to help make the most effective use of previously developed land ? viii) Is the definition of a Strategic Site [a threshold of 50 jobs – paras 6.76 and 6.77 of the CS] appropriate and realistic in all the relevant local circumstances ? ix) Is the percentage of new jobs expected from the hospital and universities [about 30%] justified by robust and credible evidence ? x) How will future employment land allocations be brought forward into the portfolio of sites when required [paras 6.72 and 6.73 of the CS] ? xi) Are the minimum employment generation requirements in policy SG18 appropriate and realistic in all the relevant local circumstances ?

17.30 End COVENTRY CORE STRATEGY

WEDNESDAY 11 NOVEMBER 09.30 DAY 2

Respondents Deadline for Further Submissions 14 October 2009 (4 weeks) Council Deadline for Responses 28 October 2009 (2 weeks)

09.30 RTS Matter 3A Housing [SG6 – SG8]

Attendees: Coventry City Council, GOWM, Warwick District Council Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Coventry University, University of Warwick Keresley Parish Council [John Finney] Finham Residents Association J G Gray [Stoneleigh Planning] William Davis [Robert Jays], Bestway [DPPLLP] Samuel Smith’s Charity [Barton Willmore] The Queen's College [Pegasus Planning] UHCW/Gallaghers [David Lock Associates]

Issues: i) Is the overall number and phasing of new housing consistent with regional policies and realistically deliverable within the plan period, taking into account the evidence in the SHLAA and the opportunities identified within the city, including the city centre and regeneration areas ?

ii) Has it been demonstrated that there will be a 5 year supply of developable new housing land, a 6 – 10 year supply on specific sites and a 11 – 15 year supply in broad locations, in accordance with PPS 3 ?

iii) Is it clear that all previously developable land [PDL] and/or all suitable greenfield [but not GB] sites have been included and, if not, why not ?

iv) How many new houses should be planned for at Walsgrave Hill Farm [Site 7, Table 3] and why ?

v) Should the Bestway site be retained for employment ?

vi) Will the intended management of new housing delivery prove adequate to ensure that the strategic aims of the CS are met, for example is it clear in what order reserved GB land would be released if monitoring identifies a need, and, if not, what else needs to be done and why ?

vii) Should the CS contain a housing trajectory, as it includes site allocations, and/or contingencies in the event that completions do not come forward as expected ?

17.30 End COVENTRY CORE STRATEGY

THURSDAY 12 NOVEMBER 09.30 DAY 3

Respondents Deadline for Further Submissions 15 October 2009 (4 weeks) Council Deadline for Responses 29 October 2009 (2 weeks)

09.30 RTS Matter 4A Green Belt [General] Attendees: Coventry City Council GOWM, Warwick District Council Nuneaton and Bedworth District Council Kenilworth Town Council, English Heritage Keresley Parish Council [John Finney] Finham Residents Association Bloor Homes [Max Whitehead] The Queen's College [Pegasus Planning] Parkridge [Holmes Antill] William Davis Ltd [Robert Jays] D C Birch and C P McDonald Merle Gering, Angela Fryer, Stephen Trinder

Issues: i) Does the available evidence demonstrate that there has been sufficiently detailed consideration of the need to remove land from the GB in the city, including the further analysis envisaged in the Joint GB study ?

ii) In the light of the above, has the supply of suitable GB land within the city been maximised or, if not, have potential sites been rejected without good reason[s] ?

iii) Are there any such sites that should be reconsidered and why ?

17.30 End COVENTRY CORE STRATEGY

FRIDAY 13 NOVEMBER 09.30 DAY 4

Respondents Deadline for Further Submissions 16 October 2009 (4 weeks) Council Deadline for Responses 30 October 2009 (2 weeks)

09.30 RTS Matter 3B Housing [SG10 – SG13]

Attendees: Coventry City Council GOWM, Warwick District Council Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council Coventry University, University of Warwick Keresley Parish Council [John Finney] Finham Residents Association J G Gray [Stoneleigh Planning] William Davis [Robert Jays] Samuel Smith’s Charity [Barton Willmore] The Queen's College [Pegasus Planning] UHCW/Gallaghers [David Lock Associates] Bestway [DPPLLP]

Issues:

i) – Policy SG10 – Is the threshold and percentage for affordable housing justified by up to date local evidence of housing needs and economic viability and does the policy provide sufficient flexibility if viability is an issue for a particular scheme ?

ii) Is there clear evidence of a local justification for 10% executive homes and/or should there be a percentage requirement for elderly persons housing ?

iii) – Policy SG11 – Is the policy consistent with national guidance in Circular 01/2006 and regional policy and are the criteria appropriate to ensure that local needs are met within the plan period ?

iv) – Policy SG12 – Is the policy consistent with national guidance in PPS 3 and appropriate to meet local needs and/or should there be references to minimum [or maximum] densities, including potentially in particular areas according to public transport accessibility levels ? v) – Policy SG13 – Is the policy consistent with national guidance and appropriate to meet local needs and how will additional student households in potentially unsuitable locations be “discouraged” ?

vi) Are the relevant monitoring indicators and targets for new housing delivery clear and appropriate for the task ?

12.30 End COVENTRY CORE STRATEGY

TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 09.30 DAY 5

Respondents Deadline for Further Submissions 20 October (4 weeks) Council Deadline for Responses 3 November (2 weeks)

09.30 RTS Matter 5 - City Centre [SG19 – SG20], Matter 6 – Neighbourhoods [SC1 – SC4 and EQ2] Attendees: Coventry City Council Coventry University, Advantage West Midlands Santokh Khera, Lindsay Green, Alana Collis, Malcolm Clement

Issues: i) Does the CS provide suitable guidance and policies for the improvement of the city centre and the preparation of a future Area Action Plan (AAP) consistent with national guidance in PPS 6 and regional policies ?

ii) Is the proposed extension of the city centre boundary soundly based and justified by the evidence in terms of potential impact on the rest of the city centre ?

iii) Should the policies include targets derived from the RSS for new retail and/or office floorspace and identify appropriate locations ?

iv) Will the monitoring indicators for centres, offices and retail be effective ?

v) Are the retail elements of polices SC1 and SC2 appropriate and consistent with national guidance and regional policies, including in terms of the network of centres identified ?

vi) Will policies SC3 and IM1 ensure that new developments provide the necessary elements of community infrastructure, including open space ?

vii) Is the removal of land from the GB for schools and the NDC area under policy EQ2 justified by the available evidence and consistent with national guidance in PPG 2 ?

1330 Lunch Matter 10 – 14.30 RTS Environment [EQ1 – EQ5]

Attendees: Coventry City Council Natural England, Sport England National Grid [Entec] The Queen's College [Pegasus] Paul Carrington, A P Martin Merle Gering, Sam Hyndman

Issues: i) Policy EQ1 – Design – Is the policy consistent with national guidance [e.g. PPS 1] and regional policies and will it achieve its objectives as worded ? ii) Policy EQ2 – Green Belt – Is the policy consistent with PPG 2, including in respect of the proposed realignments/additions to the GB and the designation of narrow corridors/wedges ? iii) Policy EQ3 – Green Infrastructure – Is the policy consistent with PPG 17 and are the green space standards supported by robust and credible evidence or too onerous and/or too detailed for a CS ? iv) Policy EQ4 – Open Space – Is the policy consistent with PPG 17 and should it also seek to remedy existing deficiencies in green space in the city ? v) Policy EQ5 – Biodiversity – Does the policy seek to suitably implement the guidance in PPS 9 in the city ?

17.30 End COVENTRY CORE STRATEGY

WEDNESDAY 18 NOVEMBER 09.30 DAY 6

Respondents Deadline for Further Submissions 21 October (4 weeks) Council Deadline for Responses 4 November (2 weeks)

09.30 RTS Matter 4B - Cross Border Housing Issues

Attendees: Coventry City Council GOWM, CPRE Warwick District Council Nuneaton and Bedworth District Council Keresley Parish Council Finham Residents Association Lenco [RPS Planning] The Queen's College [Pegasus Planning] Parkridge [Holmes Antill] Angela Fryer, Santokh Khera, Lindsay Green, Peter and Sarah Watson, Cathryn Craven, Alana Collis, Robert Donnelly, Stephen Trinder, Samantha Hyndman, Richard and Dawn Keylock, Malcolm Clement, Ann Bush, Ronald Dickinson, Patricia Freeman, Jayson Craven, John Goddard, Andrew and Gill Walton, Kathy Boulton. Dorothy Hall University of Warwick [Turley Associates]

Issues: i) Are the implications of the CS for cross border housing consistent with regional policies, including the emerging RSS Phase II Review ?

ii) Is the evidence to justify the quantity and general location of cross border new housing sought robust and credible and is it the “least worst” outcome in terms of impact on the GB ?

iii) Do the emerging CSs of Warwick and Nuneaton/Bedworth confirm commitment to meeting part of Coventry’s housing needs and what are the alternatives/contingencies if this is not delivered as envisaged ?

iv) What are the implications of reliance on cross border housing delivery in terms of infrastructure [e.g. road and rail links to the north and south], phasing [including in relation to the city’s housing trajectory] and the availability of services, including education/health.

13.00 Lunch

14.00 RTS Matter 9 – Transport [AC1]

Attendees: Coventry City Council Highways Agency University of Warwick Warwickshire County Council Centro

Issues: i) Is the overall transport strategy consistent with PPG 13, the relevant regional policies and the Local Transport Plan and, if not, what needs to be changed and why ?

ii) Is policy AC1 suitable and appropriate to deliver the necessary improvements, including in terms of rail and bus services, park and ride and cycling/walking and, if not, what else needs to be done and why ?

iii) Is there a robust and credible evidence base to demonstrate that the proposals can be delivered over the plan period ? This includes in terms of priorities, such as park and ride sites, for new infrastructure, the availability of funding and phasing, as well as contingencies/alternatives if major items, including improvements to the main road network and schemes in adjoining areas, do not come forward as expected ?

iv) Can the access problems at the Willenhall Triangle employment site be overcome during the plan period ?

17.30 End COVENTRY CORE STRATEGY

THURSDAY 19 NOVEMBER 09.30 DAY 7

Respondents Deadline for Further Submissions 22 October (4 weeks) Council Deadline for Responses 5 November (2 weeks)

09.30 RTS Matter 8A – Keresley [CS Policy SG9]

Attendees: Coventry City Council Environment Agency Keresley Parish Council Martin Robeson Planning The Queen's College [Pegasus Planning] J G Gray [Stoneleigh Planning] Stephen McNaught, S Camwell, Dorothy Hall, Mr Fisher, Mrs Bridge, Ian Ellis, John Goddard, Merle Gering, Clive Kavanagh, Roland Lucas, M Jackson, Annie Turnball, Pamela Statham.

Issues: i) Is the location and siting the most suitable and appropriate for a new community and, if not, why not – for example are there any significant physical, environmental, ecological and/or infrastructure constraints ?

ii) Is the approach of the Council in requiring a comprehensive scheme based on the principles of eco towns appropriate and, if not, why not ?

iii) Can the proposal deliver the appropriate density, size and type of new housing, including affordable housing, to meet local needs and to what timescale, as well as providing the necessary services and facilities to accompany new development ?

iv) Is the general form, nature and layout of development proposed suitable and appropriate, bearing in mind its role within the city, the need to create a sustainable new community and in the light of national guidance and regional policies ?

v) Is the impact of the scheme on the character and appearance of the area acceptable in principle and could the scheme be assimilated into the local landscape framework ?

vi) Is the scheme realistically capable of providing good transport links to the city and beyond, especially for public transport, and, if not, what are the implications/alternatives ?

vii) Are the implementation and monitoring mechanisms for delivery reasonable and realistic, including in terms of funding and phasing ?

viii) Has the proposal been the subject of a suitably comprehensive Sustainability Appraisal [SA] and, if not, why not and what else needs to be done ?

17.30 End FRIDAY 20 NOVEMBER Day 8

Respondents Deadline for 23 October Further Submissions

Council 6 November Deadline Matter 8B - Other 09.30 RTS GB sites - Table 3

Attendees: Coventry City Council Jane Martin, Stewart Ransom, Jennifer Coleman, Peter Spiers, Colin Perkins, C P McDonald, Graham Johnson, D C Birch, A P Martin, Paul Carrington, Sonya Bailey Samuel Smith's Charity [Barton Willmore]

Sites – 1] Cromwell Lane; 2] Lentons Lane; 3] Hawkesbury/Sutton Stop; 4] Gibbet Hill; 5] Duggins Lane

Issues: i) For each site, is it suitable and appropriate for the proposed use and, if not, why not – for example, are there any significant physical, environmental and/or infrastructure constraints ? ii) Is removal from the GB justified by robust and credible evidence ? iii) Can the proposal deliver the appropriate size and type of housing, including affordable housing, and to what timescale, as well as providing the necessary services and facilities to accompany new development ?

17.30 End TUESDAY 1 DECEMBER DAY 9

Respondents Deadline for Further Submissions 3 November 2009

Council Deadline for Responses 17 November 2009

09.30 RTS Matter 13A - New Sites

0930 - North of Eastern Green; 1200 - Park Hill Lane; 1530 - Chestnut Nurseries, Brown’s Lane.

Attendees:

Coventry City Council Alan Cooper [RPS] Parkridge [Holmes Antill] J S Bloor [Max Whitehead] Allesley/Eastern Green Residents Association [Vic Spencer] Action for Rural Allesley [Roger Duke] Allesley and Coundon Wedge Conservation Society [John Willis] Councillor Gary Ridley Councillor John Mutton

Issues: i) For each site, is it suitable and appropriate for the proposed use and, if not, why not – for example, are there any significant physical, environmental and/or infrastructure constraints ? ii) Is removal from the GB, where relevant, justified by robust and credible evidence ? iii) Can the proposal deliver the appropriate size and type of housing, including affordable housing, and to what timescale, as well as providing the necessary services and facilities to accompany new development ?

17.30 End WEDNESDAY 2 DECEMBER DAY 10

Respondents Deadline for Further Submissions 4 November 2009

Council Deadline for Responses 18 November 2009

09.30 RTS Matter 13B - New Sites

0930 - East of Orchard Retail Park; 1200 - Rear of Boat Inn, Shilton Lane; 1530 - Grange Farm, Longford.

Attendees:

Coventry City Council Hallam Land Management [Stoneleigh Planning] Mondial [Barton Willmore] Swift Property Consultants [Steven Watkins] Councillor John Mutton Lonnie Downes

Issues: i) For each site, is it suitable and appropriate for the proposed use and, if not, why not – for example, are there any significant physical, environmental and/or infrastructure constraints ? ii) Is removal from the GB, where relevant, justified by robust and credible evidence ? iii) Can the proposal deliver the appropriate size and type of housing, including affordable housing, and to what timescale, as well as providing the necessary services and facilities to accompany new development ?

17.30 End THURSDAY 3 DECEMBER DAY 11

Respondents Deadline for Further Submissions 5 November 2009

Council Deadline for Responses 19 November 2009

09.30 RTS Matter 13C - New Sites

0930 - Plots 10,11 & 12 Banner Park; 1100 – Sites North and South of Duggins Lane.

Attendees:

Coventry City Council Enodis William Davis Ltd K B Benfield [Martyn Bramich Associates] Samuel Smith's Charity [Barton Willmore] Berkswell Parish Council Councillor Nigel Lee Nailcote and Conway Residents Association [Phillip Maud] Cromwell and Duggins Lane Residents Group [Carole Herbert] N D Gilbert David Birch

Issues: i) For each site, is it suitable and appropriate for the proposed use and, if not, why not – for example, are there any significant physical, environmental and/or infrastructure constraints ? ii) Is removal from the GB, where relevant, justified by robust and credible evidence ? iii) Can the proposal deliver the appropriate size and type of housing, including affordable housing, and to what timescale, as well as providing the necessary services and facilities to accompany new development ?

13.30 Lunch

14.30 RTS Matter 12 – Minerals/Waste [Policies SG3 – SG5]

Attendees: Coventry City Council Warwickshire County Council Solihull Borough Council Friends of the Earth (John Verdult) D Clive Birch and C Paul McDonald Issues: i) Are the policies consistent with national guidance and regional policies and, if not, why not, and what else needs to be done ? ii) Should the CS include issues and/or strategic objectives in relation to waste, including regarding non municipal waste streams with evidence of the amounts involved ? iii) Should the policies cover matters such as apportionment of aggregates, prior extraction and mining legacy issues ? iv) Is there a need for a criteria based policy for the location of waste management facilities in relation to the scale and location of capacity, including landfill ? v) Is the removal of land from the GB for the proposed energy from waste plant justified by robust and credible evidence, including the proportion of the city’s waste that it would handle ? vi) Are the monitoring indicators and targets for minerals and waste satisfactory and sufficiently rigorous and, if not, why not and what else needs to be done ?

17.30 End FRIDAY 4 DECEMBER DAY 12

Respondents Deadline for Further Submissions 6 November 2009

Council Deadline for Responses 20 November 2009

09.30 RTS Matter 11 – Energy/Flooding/Water [Policy SG2]

Attendees: Coventry City Council Coventry University The Queen's College [Pegasus Planning] William Davis [Robert Jays] Samuel Smith’s Charity [Barton Willmore] Environment Agency, Severn Trent Water Dorothy Hall, Finham Residents Association

Issues: i) Are the targets set out in policy SG2 consistent with national guidance and regional policies ? ii) Are they supported by a robust and credible evidence base ? iii) Are they reasonable and realistic in terms of delivery, bearing in mind the associated costs imposed, and/or should they be more flexible and, if so, how ? iv) Is the CS consistent with national guidance in PPS 25, including with regard to the SFRA, PPS 25 exceptions test and locations proposed for development and, if not, what else needs to be done and why ? v) Are there any significant water supply constraints affecting the CS development proposals ?

12.00 Lunch

13.00 IH Matter 7 – Delivery/Flexibility/Monitoring

Attendees: Coventry City Council Coventry University The Queen's College [Pegasus Planning] D C Birch and C P McDonald Finham Residents Association

Issues: i) Infrastructure Delivery – Bearing in mind the phasing and funding required, is the overall strategy economically viable and practically achievable in the timescales envisaged and in the form proposed and, if not, what should be changed to enhance the prospects for delivery ? ii) Flexibility – Is the CS reasonably flexible to enable it to deal with changing circumstances and, if not, what changes/contingencies would improve the ability to respond to new issues arising during the plan period, such as a lack of investment in major projects ? iii) Monitoring – Will the monitoring proposed be sufficiently comprehensive and informative to achieve its objectives and if not, why not, and what needs to be changed? iv) Implementation – Are the implementation mechanisms identified sufficient and suitable to achieve their objectives and, if not, why not, and what needs to be changed?

15.00 RTS Matter 14 - Key Diagram/Proposals Map

Attendees: Coventry City Council GOWM D C Birch and C P McDonald Finham Residents Association

Issues: i) Does the Key Diagram need to be changed and, if so, how ? ii) Should it show cross boundary directions for growth of housing and employment and/or the Meriden Gap ? iii) Does the Proposals Map show the appropriate information or should anything be added, deleted or moved to the Key Diagram ? iv) - Final Round Up – Are there any other possible changes that the Council might want to be considered to make the Core Strategy sound ?

16.30 End