Warwick District Local Plan – Revised Deposit Version
Topic Response Analysis
Topic: Village Inset Plan : Bishops Tachbrook
Summary of matters raised in objections.
1. The village envelope should remain the same as in the adopted Local Plan
342/RAA Pamela A Smith
2. The two fields directly opposite the Leopard Inn should be included within the village
envelope
346/RAA and RAC J M Glenn
Response of Head of Planning & Engineering to matters raised
1.
The purpose of the village envelopes is to define the boundary of the built area of the
settlement within which limited infilling, according to the spatial policies of the plan,
will be appropriate. The village envelope boundaries in the adopted plan were
defined within the context of previous government and Structure Plan policy.
Government guidance prior to the current PPG3 did not emphasise the re-use of
previously-developed land and the concentration of most additional housing in the
urban areas. These two aims form the backbone of current government policy in
PPG3 (paragraph 21). The current Structure Plan and Regional Spatial Strategy
(RSS) reflect PPG3 and include policies which aim to direct new housing to the
urban areas and make best use of previously-developed land and buildings.
RSS Policy RR1 states that in rural areas which are “subject to strong influences
from the MUA’s and which are relatively prosperous and have good access to
services” the main priority will be to “manage the rate and nature of further
development to that required to meet local needs, whilst ensuring that local character
is protected and enhanced.” The Council considers that Bishops Tachbrook falls into
this category of village and, as a Limited Growth Village, it should only accommodate
a limited amount of housing, to meet local needs, on previously-developed land. The
boundary of the village envelope has been drawn to include the main built up areas
of the village and to exclude areas of greenfield land where infilling would be
inappropriate.
Similarly, Structure Plan Policies GD.3 and GD.5 direct “most” new development to
towns of over 8,000 people, firstly, within the existing built up area and then to easily
accessible locations adjacent to these towns and outside the Green Belt. “Most” new
development is defined as the whole of the migration element as well as an element
of local needs which is proportionate to the number of people living in towns. In
Warwick, this amounts to a requirement of 420 dwellings to meet the needs of the
rural areas between 1996 and 2011. However, by April 2005, 1,113 dwellings had
already been built in the rural areas and a further 176 dwellings were under
construction or had the benefit of planning permission. For this reason, the Plan
seeks to restrict new housing in the rural areas to housing which meets a proven
local need in sustainable settlements or exception housing.
Structure Plan Policies RA.2 and RA.3 direct rural housing to areas within or
adjacent to villages according to a hierarchy of settlements based on existing
facilities, transport and job opportunities. This hierarchy should be defined in the
Local Plan and any development should meet local needs, as identified by the
community, and/or support communities.
Structure Plan Policy GD.5 states that greenfield land should only be released for
housing where there are no available sources of previously developed land and, in
such cases, greenfield sites should only be released within or adjacent to towns with
over 8,000 people.
The identification of the Limited Growth Villages is based on the criteria in Structure
Plan Policy RA.3. The boundaries of the Limited Growth Villages, are drawn to
enclose the existing built up areas of the villages and, with the exception of rural
affordable housing under “exception housing” policy, new housing development in
the Limited Growth Villages will only be permitted on previously developed land.
The Local Plan policies for the rural area would not preclude the development of
greenfield sites outside the village envelope for genuine affordable housing. This
would be permissible under Policy RAP5 if other development considerations were
satisfactory.
2. See response to 1.
Recommended revision(s)
1. No change
2. No change
Topic: Inset map: Airport Safeguarding composite
Summary of matters raised in objections.
1. The area within which wind farms should be restricted should be reduced to a
minimum. (James Mackay – 199/RAD)
2. The plan should be amended to accord with the safeguarding map used by Coventry
airport. (West Midlands International Airport Ltd – 321/RAZ)
Response of Head of Planning & Engineering to matters raised
1. Policy DAP14 (to which this inset plan relates) does not restrict uses such as wind
farms by definition within the states areas, only requires that consultation with the
relevant airport operator will be required. The Council is required to consult with
relevant operators on such applications in accordance with ODPM circular 01/2003.
2. The Council receives plans indicating the consultation areas covered by this policy
formally from Coventry airport. The inset plan relates to the most recent information
formally supplied by the airport. If the airport was to formally notify the Council that
the consultation areas have changed, we would amend this plan. To date, it has not
done so.
Recommended revision(s)
1. No change
2. No change
Topic: Information Plan - Major Developed Site, Leek Wootton Police
Headquarters.
Summary of matters raised in objections.
1. The boundary of the major developed site in this location should be amended to
include additional areas around the main building complex and land adjacent to the
north and south drives. (Warwickshire Police – 288/RAD)
Response of Head of Planning & Engineering to matters raised
1. This issue has been addressed alongside their objection to policy SSP2. A number
of changes, some of them very minor, are proposed by the Police Authority. I would
agree that some are acceptable as being within the spirit of changes already
proposed, however the inclusion of the tennis courts, the land fronting the main
group of buildings and the land to the north of the driveway should not be
incorporated. These areas do not relate to the operational land currently occupied
by the Police, and accordingly should not be included within the MDS boundary. No
justification has been provided as to why these areas in particular merit inclusion.
Recommended revision(s)
1. Amend boundary of MDS to include small triangle of land proposed by objector
within MDS.