Coventry's Core Strategy Appendix
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Schedule 1 Statutory Consultee Representor number REP-0026 Representor : Mr K Bromley Company: Keresley Parish Council Representation number: 1969 Representation in regard to : Core Strategy Proposed Document Verbatim Submission The overall scale of growth proposed for Coventry is over three and a half times average house building rates between 2001-2006, which was a favourable period for the house building industry . Given the current recession and slump in house building generally it is most unlikely to be achieved. Officer Recommendation No change. Representation number: 2176 Representation in regard to : Policy EQ 2 - Green Belt Verbatim Submission Petition signed by over 3000 people. We the undersigned are in strong opposition of any intrusion by development within green belt in the Keresley area. Officer Recommendation No change Representation number: 2178 Representation in regard to : Policy EQ 2 - Green Belt Verbatim Submission With regard to the Core Strategy document Keresley Parish Council would like to raise the following objections in line with the response deadline of 7th May 2009. As the main thrust within this strategy would have a massive effect on our community and existing green belt areas we do not believe that the scale of housing being proposed for Coventry is appropriate. The figures being quoted are three and a half times greater than recent house building rates of Coventry City Council have made 2001 - 2006 it quite clear that their prime objective within the strategy is to use up/utilise all brown field sites before they commence or consider the use of green belt land. We at Keresley Parish Council have no confidence in Coventry City Council's ability or desire to follow this line. In fact we are very concerned with an apparent agenda which suggests green belt is an option to be considered now and not in the future as brown field sites decrease. As a Parish Council we have consulted with our electorate and find no support for this development which is totally within the Parish council boundary. We feel the green belt land in question, sites to the north and east of Tamworth Road, is of far more benefit to the people of Coventry for recreational activities and also to provide the last area of open countryside between Coventry and the boroughs of North Warwickshire, Nuneaton and Bedworth. This area of land should remain as it is - a benefit to everyone who wishes to use it . Currently there are under 300 houses in Keresley Parish to increase this to over 3000 is excessive to say the least. This will put another 6000 cars on local roads approximately 12,000 extra people, this added to plans of the neighbouring authorities is to great a burden for this area and will as you must be aware that the core strategy will create a massive urban development stretching from Nuneaton in the North to Stratford-upon-Avon, South Warwickshire. Why does the City Council believe this massive development sustainable and how long will it be before it is unsustainable because at the moment their efforts to sustain what they have is proving impossible. There are 5000 empty properties in Coventry - why are they not being occupied. Officer Recommendation No change 1 Statutory Consultee Representor number REP-1002 Representor : Mr G D Symes Company: Kenilworth Town Council Representation number: 1715 Representation in regard to : 5: Spatial Strategy Verbatim Submission LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK - SUBMISSION CORE STRATEGY CONSULTATION 1. Thank you for sight of the documentation covering the above, which has been considered by the same working party which is covering the Regional Spatial Strategy. Several Members are dual-hatted and also serve on Warwick District Council (WDC) so they are familiar with the joint Green Belt document and other similar aspects, plus the material drawn-up by WDC. 2. With the RSS examination in public ongoing and further revisions to policies foreseen , Members have not drawn up a formal response but have commented that their views concerning the current Coventry Core Strategy are, at this stage, essentially the same as those expressed in relation to the RSS. Accordingly, they have asked me to forward the relevant RSS response sheets covering sub matters 8Ei and 8Eii. 3. The various proposals being suggested will, if implemented in full or part, have a significant impact on the whole sub-region and Members therefore particularly request they be kept informed on the progression of the Coventry Local Development Framework. Matter 8Ei - The questions in this part of the Enquiry relate in the main to our neighbours but most of the conclusions thereon will have an effect on Kenilworth as it is situated so close to the Coventry border. In those circumstances we have commented on some of the matters raised but will deal more fully with these when we respond to the Queries in 8E [ii]. For ease of reference we have paraphrased the queries raised by the Enquiry that we wish to comment on. Q1. Are there obstacles to the achievement of the Coventry housing provision proposed? We believe that there are considerable obstacles to Coventry achieving the housing provision required by the preferred option. Firstly it is evident, and we believe accepted, that there is insufficient land within the city limits for this to be self contained. Further the rate at which development has taken place within the City has been in the main at a slower rate than that which has been achieved within Warwick District. The figures for the period 2002 to 2008 suggest that this was almost level pegging until the moratorium took effect in Warwick District in 2005. This was imposed as the District was attracting development way in excess of that planned for and in order to keep that development within the sustainable limits suggested by its Local Plan. Kenilworth population and housing stock has more than doubled in size over the last 30/40 years and this has resulted in its envelope being completely full, with little land or no land for it to contribute without extension into the Green Belt. Its population has grown 132% since 1950 as against that of Coventry 22%, Leamington Spa 30% and Warwick 85%. The City has not had the attraction for developers that the Warwick District has suffered from and this has resulted in the District and Kenilworth having developed faster than provided for and resulted in the need for a moratorium being imposed until recently. Further, it is difficult to see how Coventry, which has suffered from a serious loss of industry over the last few years in particular, could provide employment for such a large increase in housing and presumably the population following it. Despite this it is evident that if these figures are imposed then there will be overspill into the surrounding area and this will endanger the Green Belt around Kenilworth as there is hardly any, if any, land left for development within the town which is corseted and protected by its Green Belt . Officer Recommendation No change 2 Statutory Consultee Representor number REP-1002 Representor : Mr G D Symes Company: Kenilworth Town Council Representation number: 2355 Representation in regard to : 5: Spatial Strategy Verbatim Submission Matter 8Ei cont.... Q2. The strategy indicates that Green Belt alterations would be required. The Town Council does not feel that any further development could be accommodated within its boundaries or for that matter on the edge of its boundaries without considerable danger of creating an urban sprawl that would eventfully stretch from the north of Nuneaton to the south side of Kenilworth and as such destroy the Towns integrity and character. That position becomes much worse if one considers the Nathaniel Litchfield proposals which in the view of the Council are impractical, unnecessary, and completely unacceptable. The Green Belt around Kenilworth is effectively its boundary and this has resulted in the Town being developed to sit within it. This together with pressure for development has lead to the Town losing much of the industry and employment that it had, and as a result it has insufficient provision for the employment of the people who actually live there. In the past this has meant that it was largely a dormitory for Coventry, but this has changed and the emphasis has moved more towards Leamington and Warwick in recent years. Any development in and around the town would impose strains on all of the services and infrastructure that would be required for the servicing of those developments and would be contrary to the accepted need to build self sustaining communities with less need to commute. Q3. Overspill resulting from the City. To nominate overspill sites in any areas before the redevelopment of the sites identified within the City would be counter productive in that there would be a temptation to develop those sites in advance of those within the City. We believe that the problem has already been demonstrated quite clearly as the county area has been shown to be more attractive to developers. This would be counter productive to a policy which as we understand it provides that the overspill from the City would be as a last resort when the provision available to the City has been used up. Further since we do not know when that requirement will arise it need not and should not be identified at this stage but at a time in the future, when and if it becomes necessary. This has the advantage of not trying to see too far into the future but allowing decisions to be made at a time when account can be taken of the situation then existing. Officer Recommendation No change 3 Statutory Consultee Representor number REP-1002 Representor : Mr G D Symes Company: Kenilworth Town Council Representation number: 2356 Representation in regard to : 5: Spatial Strategy Verbatim Submission Matter 8Eii - We believe that the proposals contained in the preferred option will damage the character of the Warwick District as a whole and those contained in the Nathaniel Litchfield Report are completely unsustainable and would ruin the District.