Coventry Local Plan Submission Town and Country Planning ...€¦ · Town and Country Planning Regulations 2012 Regulation 22c Consultation Statement ... Summary of the main issues

Coventry Local Plan Submission

Town and Country Planning Regulations 2012

Regulation 22c Consultation Statement

March 2016

(i) List of bodies and persons invited to make representations under regulation 18 Delivering Sustainable Growth: September 2014 Appendix 1 of this submission statement contains a list of specific bodies and statutory organisations consulted. Public consultation was extensive and was undertaken using a variety of methods with various bodies, including Parish Councils, neighbouring authorities, community and voluntary organisations and the business community based on the Councils SCI database. A full list of the organisations invited to make representations is in Appendix 1 below. In addition 446 individuals, who were registered on the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) consultation database were consulted. (ii) How those bodies and person were invited to make representations under regulation 18 The Delivering Sustainable Growth stage of the plan preparation process commenced by way of a 6 week period of consultation between September 12th and October 31st 2014 and notification was sent via email and/or letter to all consultees on the Councils SCI database. Consultees had the opportunity to make representations by email, post or online. The Council complied with the methods of communication as set out in its SCI, this included a press advert; press notice; exhibitions and drop in sessions and public and organisation specific meetings.

(iii) Summary of the main issues raised by the representations made in pursuant to regulation 18 The period of public engagement began on Friday 12th September and finished on the 31st October 2014. Throughout the period of engagement the Council put forward a comprehensive communications strategy. This was carried out in full accordance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement and also included the first stage of an Equalities and Consultation Analysis.

The table below summarises the public engagement processes and the feedback received to date. This principally groups the engagement process into 1 of 3 categories:

• Media engagement;

• Ward forums and community meetings; and

• Local Plan drop-in sessions All general comments received to the plan were covered within the ‘media engagement’ section of Table 1 below.

Table 1: Summary of main issues

Area of Engagement

Feedback Summary

Media engagement A range of media activity took place over the course of this public engagement process, includeding:

• An interview with Touch FM as part of the Earlsdon library drop in session;

• Focused Twitter discussions with Councillor Maton, Cabinet Member for Business, Enterprise and Employment, and Council officers;

• A 4 page special in the September/October edition of City Vision;

• A range of leaflets, info-graphics and promotional material made available in local libraries and council buildings;

• The creation of a new Local Plan website;

• A sample telephone and face to face survey targeted at how Coventry citizens interpret and understand the Local Plan and its importance to the city’s future development and prosperity; and

• Other correspondence in local newspapers, radio and social media;

The media activity has generated emails, phone calls and letters to the Council’s Planning Policy team, commenting on the Local Plan in more generic terms. Much of this engagement has however focused on a number of key themes, including the need for development of Green Belt land, site/area specific issues and detailed enquiries around the population projections and housing numbers. The most common area of engagement in terms of emails and phone calls has resulted from residents in the Keresley area expressing particular concern around the potential development of Green Belt land. The sample survey process identified that just a quarter of people asked were aware of the Local Plan, however the survey also highlighted different aspects of the plan in terms of importance and these ranked as follows:

1. employment ; 2. green space; 3. city centre; and 4. housing

The sample survey will be repeated at the end of the public engagement process to help gauge the success of the promotion and engagement.

It is worth noting, however, that despite increased media coverage and promotional material, engagement through emails and phone calls has been lower than expected, especially when compared to previous consultation activities relating to the Local Plan (or Core Strategy as it was previously known).

Ward Forums and Community Meetings

Offers were made for officers to attend all ward forums across Coventry. However, there were 7 forums that were held prior to the start of the engagement process, which meant attendance was difficult to arrange. Notwithstanding, the Local Plan was discussed at 2 of these forums (Bablake and Holbrook). However, the other 5 forums (Westwood, Henley, Earlsdon, Radford and Whoberley) were not attended. Once the engagement process commenced, Local Plan presentations were made to all remaining ward forums with the exception of St Michaels and Binley and Willenhall, whilst Cheylsemore was attended with a short question and answer session as opposed to a presentation. This meant 11 ward forums were attended in total presenting to in excess of 350 local residents. This included 6 of the forums being attended by in excess of 30 people each. A key area of debate was around infrastructure, both existing capacities and new provisions. In Bablake this particularly focused on highways and drainage issues, whilst Woodlands and Wainbody made comments about highway infrastructure especially and Wyken and Longford raised more general infrastructure concerns. The strongest objections were raised in Bablake and Wainbody wards, with objections to the principle of developing on Green Belt land and complaints about the level and details of consultation. These sessions also included debate about the robustness of the population projections for Coventry and the housing numbers that are derived from them. The development of Green Belt land was also discussed at Longford and Upper Stoke, whilst support for more housing at the right price and in the right locations was identified in Upper Stoke and Foleshill. Discussions at Lower Stoke focused primarily around HiMO’s, whilst comments at Sherbourne were linked to brownfield redevelopment and filling empty homes. One overarching theme of the Ward Forums that did gain support in principle was the need to grow and support the city’s economy, creating more jobs for local people. It was

also discussed that new homes should follow jobs growth and be located in close proximity in order to support sustainable development. This was also seen by some as an opportunity to link infrastructure and promote sustainable transport. In addition to the ward forums invitations were sent to a range of local community groups and forums offering opportunities to discuss the Local Plan. To date this invitation has been taken up by 4 community groups:

• Allesley Parish Council;

• Coventry and Warwickshire Chamber of Commerce;

• Coventry and Warwickshire Accessible Transport Group; and

• Coventry Action for Neighbourhoods (CAN) In addition, the Council’s Public Health Team also requested an opportunity to engage in the process to continue developing the strong links between planning and health that are already incorporated within the Local Plan. Whilst not as well attended, the feedback from Allesley Parish Council was similar to the Bablake ward forum, but comments from the Chamber of Commerce and the Accessible Transport Group were generally positive. Of particular interest to the Chamber were issues around design and connectivity, ensuring the city will grow in a sustainable and coherent way, and delivering sufficient housing growth to support economic development. The Accessible Transport Group focused more on the city centre and the opportunities to access the centre from new developments as well as design, connectivity and access to community facilities and services. There was also a desire to see more homes built within the city centre and a wider range of accommodation for older persons and those with disabilities. In particular it was suggested that the city centre should not just be for students. In addition, Presentations and discussions were held with Warwickshire County Council, the Coventry and Warwickshire Duty to Cooperate group, and the West Midlands Metropolitan Duty to Cooperate group. Each of these engagement events helped discharge the duty to cooperate responsibilities that the Council have with its neighbouring authorities. At the time of writing, responses have been received from Rugby Borough Council (RBC), Warwick District Council (WDC) and North Warwickshire Borough Council (NWBC). While all three agree that it is the most sustainable option to manage growth comprehensively across the housing market

area, and agree that it is desirable for Coventry to accommodate as much of that growth as possible, there is some significant divergence between the response’s from RBC and WDC and that of NWBC in other key areas. RBC and WDC have written in general support of the Local Plan, with firm commitments to on-going and constructive engagement through the Duty to Cooperate. NWBC takes a robust position to the effect that Coventry should comply with and not try to undermine the strategy that has recently been adopted by NWBC. In doing so NWBC asks Coventry to respect the rural nature of North Warwickshire and recognise that it has a number of areas it seeks to protect and areas it wishes to see as focal points for development. It is considered that this, in principle, is a reasonable request. NWBC does provide a commitment to continued working through the Duty to Cooperate and it is important to note that its recently adopted Core Strategy contains a clear commitment to being reviewed immediately once the housing pressures associated with Birmingham, Tamworth and its other neighbours (which can include Coventry) are known in detail. This formed part of a modification to the plan that was necessary to ensure its soundness. Of significant current concern, however, is the recent submission of a letter to the Birmingham Local Plan examination, signed by NWBC, which now appears to signal a significant step away from such a commitment to work with Birmingham on meeting its housing need. It is worthy of note however that the same letter recognises that it is both “common sense and good practice” to meet housing need “in locations close to where the need arises”. With this in mind, officers will continue to work closely with colleagues at NWBC in particular to clarify its position, and the city’s other neighbouring authorities, to ensure the housing needs of the Coventry and Warwickshire Housing Market Area are met in the most sustainable way.

Local Plan Drop-in Sessions

A total of 20 Library drop-in sessions were arranged throughout the 7 week engagement process. These were hosted from the city’s libraries, with each library hosting at least 1 event. Drop-in sessions were advertised through a range of sources, including:

• On the Council’s new Local Plan website;

• The Council’s Twitter feed;

• Email notifications to stakeholders; and

• Advertising posters in the city’s libraries Despite efforts to promote these events attendance was limited, with around 80 people attending. 14 of the events registered fewer than 5 attendees, 3 events welcomed

between five and 10 people, whilst three sessions were attended by more than 10 people. The majority of people who attended these sessions objected to the plan on three specific issues. The first of these was site specific, such as development potential at Keresley, Eastern Green and Kings Hill. The second was linked to Green Belt development in principle, whilst the third was associated with the general expansion of Coventry and in particular how infrastructure provisions would cope. In addition to the sites mentioned above, further comments were made about sites at Browns Lane, the former Acetate site in Foleshill and numerous sites within the City Centre. The city centre also prompted a range of comments about the need to improve the retail and leisure offer, the need for more homes in the city centre including a better mix of housing offer (as opposed to solely a student focus) and concerns around accessibility and connectivity. In addition to the three main threads of discussion, a number of other general comments were made including housing need in general (both too high and too low); the need to prioritise brownfield sites for housing; density of new development, design principles and specific aspects of infrastructure. The three sessions that were most well attended were at Finham, Canley and Coundon. The session at Finham focused on the principles around Green Belt policy and development of new homes within the Green Belt. There was also a specific focus on the possible development of the land known as Kings Hill. Although this is situated with Warwick District residents still expressed concerns about the impact developing this site may have on Finham and the wider southern parts of Coventry. Linked to the site specific discussions in Finham were concerns about infrastructure, notably highways, libraries, schools, cemetery provision, community facilities, children’s play provision and the capacity of Finham Sewage works. It was these aspects of infrastructure that were also the focus of other discussions, although in addition to the above list, health care and drainage were specifically raised in relation to Keresley, whilst communications and public transport were specifically highlighted at Canley. At Coundon, discussion focused solely on the impacts the plan would have on Coundon library. This is discussed further in the supporting report to SB3, which relates to the SHLAA. Discussions at Canley were focused around the

possible development opportunities on land north of Eastern Green, the principles of development and justification for the housing need. In addition to the general discussions and objection to the plan proposals, there were a number of people who were in general support of the principle for growing Coventry, meeting its housing need in the right way and linking the provision of new homes to a continued promotion of economic growth and development.

(iv) How representations made pursuant to regulation 18 have been taken in to account The Council has summarised the representations received and has provided a response to the points raised in the representations at each stage of consultation during the preparation of the Plan. These summaries and responses have been published in the reports of public consultation. This process has enabled the Council to carefully assess and take in account every point raised. This in turn ensures that each consultation has informed the next iteration of the Plan. These reports of Public Consultation are provided in Appendix 2 to this Statement.

v) Regulation 20 Representations - the number of representations made and summary of main issues raised.

Publication Draft, January 2016

Survey Monkey: The Survey Monkey questionnaire contained four questions. These focused on the general views of the Local Plan as well as direct questions about the level of information available and views on the overarching objective of being a Top 10 City again. A total of 697 people completed the Survey Monkey process, although not everyone answered every question. Due to the inappropriate nature of some responses a number were deleted by officers. This affected 16 in relation to the Local Plan. Of the responses received to the Local Plan 483 were received and the table below highlights the number of responses received to each question.

Table 2: Survey Monkey Results

Question Answered Skipped Support Object Not sure

Do you think Coventry

692 5 204 379 109

should grow so it can be a top ten city?

What do you think of the Local Plan?*

483 198 60 413 10

Do you think you have you had enough information and opportunities to tell us what you think about the Local Plan

504 193 83 353 68

* In relation to the question about the Local Plan, please note that two responses on the Survey Monkey were discounted as they duplicated responses received via email and/or in writing. A further 14 responses were deleted as they contained disparaging remarks and/or inappropriate language. Based on officer’s review of the responses to Survey Monkey questionnaire, it would appear that the vast majority of responses are from local residents. There were very few examples of duplication and, where it has been possible to remove them, they have been deleted. A total of two responses were identified within the Survey monkey questionnaires that were not from local residents. These were submitted by McCarthy and Stone and Elite Student Accommodation Services.

Summary of formal responses:

In addition to the questionnaire responses above, a total of 240 consultation responses to the Local Plan were received from a variety of sources. These were submitted either via email or in writing and included completed survey forms from libraries and drop-in sessions. The responses included: 1 x response from Jim Cunningham MP 9 x responses from Councillors representing Coventry and Warwickshire 139 x responses from local residents 91 x responses from individual companies or organisations (including neighbouring Councils). In addition a total of four petitions were received:

• 29 signatures objecting to development of land in the Green Belt and at Eastern Green

• 715 signatures objecting to plans to re-classify Green Belt land at Eastern Green

• 351 signatures (at the time of writing) raised by the Allesley Green Residents' Association objecting to proposal to reclassify the Green Belt status within the

city boundary in order to provide for additional housing, retail and industrial buildings.

• 250 signature petition asking that the land at Baginton Fields be designated as Local Green Space.

Summary of responses from residents: In general local communities and residents responded in objection to the Local Plan proposals. They were generally focused on two key areas. Firstly the consultation period and a perceived lack of engagement on the Local Plan in particular. Secondly, around the development of land currently within the Green Belt in general and at specific locations, most notably Cromwell Lane, Eastern Green, Whitley and Keresley. This included references to encroachment on the Meriden Gap and concerns over the possible merging of Coventry with neighbouring towns and cities. In raising objections residents and communities did raise a range of comments relating to site specific issues and concerns. These included:

• Highway capacity and safety and the need for improvements and investment;

• Lack of existing capacity in local schools;

• Lack of existing health care capacity;

• The importance of infrastructure provisions in general;

• Drainage and flood risk issues, both on sites proposed for development and subsequent impacts on existing built up areas;

• The importance of any new development being well integrated into the existing urban area;

• The importance of any new development being high quality design;

• That if development does happen that it is well landscaped and includes an appropriate buffer/screening to existing homes;

• The ability of utilities to cope with planned growth; and

• The impacts of development on local ecology and biodiversity, including ancient woodlands, trees and hedgerows.

Summary of responses from companies and organisations:

Responses from this grouping were positive and broadly supportive of the approach the Local Plan was taking. This included recognition that the city could not accommodate its full housing needs within its own boundaries, but that the Plan had taken an appropriate and well evidenced approach to growth and development. There was also support for site proposals and broad support for the key infrastructure and design principles associated with them. There were some areas of challenge and objection, which focused on issues of housing policy, Green Belt/Local Green Space, Environmental Management policies and Retail policies. These covered the following areas:

• An over projection of available brownfield land and land within the existing urban area. Responses suggested capacity could be nearer the 11,000 mark instead of the 16/17,000 figure talked about in the Plan;

• An under estimation of overall capacity due to a number of sites being discounted which could otherwise be included. These include:

o Land south of Duggins Lane – housing o Land at Duggins Lane – housing o Land north of Duggins Lane – housing

o Land east of Pickford Green Lane – housing o Land west of Pickford Green Lane – housing o Garages at Braemar Close – housing o Land at Rookery Farm, East of Coundon Wedge Drive – housing o President Kennedy Sports Fields, Waste Lane – housing and/or education o Land at Austin Drive – retail expansion

NB: The sites in italics above are sites which have not previously been considered through the Local Plan or SHLAA process.

• An under estimate of housing need both locally and within the sub-region. Some responses felt the need in Coventry should be nearer 50,000 and the need in Coventry and Warwickshire as a whole in excess of 100,000 homes over the same plan period;

• Over prescriptive policies around density and housing types;

• Over prescriptive policies around affordable housing delivery;

• Impacts of Keresley SUE on highways and connectivity at Pro-Logis Park;

• Lack of positive policy around self-build homes and calculation of demand for such properties;

• Over burdening requirements within the Environmental Management section - especially around a drive to carbon neutral homes, renewable energy provisions and sustainable construction;

• Over allocation of retail space to the city centre;

• Unnecessary restriction on further growth of Arena Park retail area;

• Removal of a small number of areas from the proposed Local Green Space designation – especially at the University of Warwick and the Alan Higgs Centre;

• Expansion of the Local Green Space designation at Charterhouse fields; and

• Limited concern to the approach to Local Green Space in general. In addition to the developer led organisations and businesses, a number of responses were received from local groups and specialist organisations to the Local Plan. In total nine responses were received from:

• The Coal Authority

• Sport England

• CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England)

• The Woodland Trust Coventry Society;

• Warwickshire Wildlife Trust;

• Coventry Tree Wardens Network;

• The Coventry Green Space and Heritage Forum;

• President Kennedy School; and

• Bishop Ullathorne RC School. These responses were more specialist in nature, reflecting their specific areas of interest. Comments were positive but did seek some clarification, noted concern and suggested amendments. These can be summarised as follows:

• The Coal authority raised concern about the lack of policy around land stability and mining legacy and felt that such evidence should have been given greater consideration in the SHLAA and site appraisal process.

• Sport England has raised points of clarity around the standard of replacement sports pitches linked to sites H2:19 and JE2:4 and whether or not the replacement provisions would actually be new facilities.

• The CPRE have raised a number of objections relating to the quantum of housing and employment needs and the impacts this is could have on the Green Belt of Coventry and Warwickshire.

• Both the Woodland Trust and the Coventry Tree Wardens Network have sought a strengthening of policy GE3 and GE4 in particular around trees, hedgerows and ancient woodlands to ensure they remain protected for future generations

• Warwickshire Wildlife Trust raises specific concerns about possible impacts on Local Wildlife sites and ancient woodlands as a result of planned allocations. Of particular concerns are the Sutton Stop site (primarily the land to the east where it relates more to the canal area), Keresley, Eastern Green and Whitley.

• The Coventry Green Space and Heritage Forum raise a number of clarification points around on-going protection of parks and green spaces across Coventry and clarification around the Local green Space designations.

• With regard to the schools, Bishop Ullathorne has requested an adjustment to policy GB2 to clarify that the school land that may be removed from the Green Belt would still be retained for education purposes. President Kennedy on the other hand has promoted the site of its existing playing fields at Waste Lane as a possible redevelopment site for either homes or education (or both).

Responses to the Duty to Cooperate Although some organisations have queried the inclusion of this policy, there has also been a degree of support for the policy as it reflects that on-going commitment. This is recognised by some as being particularly important at a time when a proportion of Coventry’s housing and employment land needs will be delivered in neighbouring authorities. Rugby Borough Council (RBC), Warwick District Council (WDC), Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC), North Warwickshire Borough Council (NWBC), Stratford on Avon District Council (SADC), Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council (NBBC) and Warwickshire County Council have all responded to the Local Plan consultation. All responses from these authorities have been positive and reflect the work undertaken jointly across Coventry and Warwickshire in recent years. in spite of this, a few points have been flagged up as follows:

• RBC recognise and support the position of Ansty Park and Pro-Logis Park Ryton and that they contribute towards Coventry’s employment land needs

• RBC highlight some points of clarification in relation to two SHLAA sites and seek the Council’s on-going commitment to maximising its housing land opportunities

• NWBC seek longer term commitment to infrastructure investment and growth opportunities beyond the life of this Plan.

• WDC highlights their emerging approach to land south of the city boundary at Kings Hill and Westwood Heath. This may impact on Policy GB2 as both plans evolve

• WDC seek on-going commitment to continued joint working around infrastructure delivery around the city’s southern boundary. This reflects the city’s own Local Plan policy DS2.

• WCC highlight the importance of continued working between CCC and WCC as highway authorities to ensure appropriate infrastructure is brought forward.

• NBBC highlight the importance of continuing to undertake joint working between the two authorities and highlight the Conservation Area at Hawkesbury as an opportunity for future joint work.

A number of objections were received from parish and town councils and residents associations. Although not directly linked to the Duty to Cooperate they are important considerations in the overall Plan making process. Keresley, Baginton and Fillongley Parish Councils made formal objections to the Plan linked to the development of land within the Green Belt within or near to their respective areas, as did the Cromwell Lane and Duggins Lane Residents Association and Allesley Green Residents Association. Kenilworth Town Council raised similar concerns. Gosford Park Residents Association and Charterhouse Residents Association have raised objections to the Local Plan with regard to its approach to Houses in Multiple Occupation and student housing. South Earlsdon Neighbourhood Area also mirrored these concerns whilst also raising explicit concerns linked to the consultation process. The Charterhouse Residents Association also raised a request to amend policy HE3 in particular around the approach to the Heritage Park proposals and possible expansion of Bluecoats school. Other Duty to cooperate stakeholders who have provided responses to the Local Plan can be summarised as follows:

• West Midlands Integrated Transport Authority makes a range of comments around the accessibility chapter of the Local Plan, but is broadly supportive of its content. Comments predominantly focus on strengthening and clarifying a few areas around public transport connectivity and accessibility.

• Natural England generally supports the strategic approach taken to the protection and enhancement of the environment through the policies in this plan and supports the Habitats Regulation Assessment.

• The C&WLEP is again broadly supportive of the Plan. Its main comments focus on the need to maintain a constant supply of employment land which is available to meet the needs of the city’s economy and support jobs growth.

• Highways England wish to ensure on-going discussions around development proposals, especially where they may have an impact on the strategic highway network. This is particularly related to funding and securing developer contributions to facilitate key aspects of infrastructure.

• Historic England seeks clarification around the impacts of some development proposals on listed buildings and conservation areas themselves and also the setting of some buildings and areas as a result of development proposals.

• The Environment Agency seeks some minor modifications to the Local Plan policies around flood risk (in particular Policies EM4 and EM5). Officers expect to undertake further engagement with the Environment Agency in the coming weeks, and in advance of submission of the Plan to secure a Statement of Common Ground around these policy areas. There is already an existing agreement however that the Local Plan seeks to safeguard new and

existing property from flood risk and implement infrastructure which will help mitigate existing risks.

No responses were received from utility providers (including Severn Trent), emergency service providers or NHS England.

Appendix 1 Organisations invited to make representations at various stages of the plan

Delivering Sustainable Growth: September 2014

Accord Housing Association

ACT TRAVELWISE

Action for Rural Allesley

Addleshaw Booth & Co

Age Concern Coventry

AJA architects llp

Alan Riley Associates

Albany Community Group

Allesley and Coundon Wedge Conservation Society

Allesley and Eastern Green Residents Association

Allesley Parish Council

Allesley Residents Association

Amberscope

AMEC

Ancer Spa (Midlands) Ltd

Andrew B Grudzinski

Andrew Hiorns Ltd

Anglian Home Improvements

Anjum-e-Gujarati-Muslim Society

Ansty Parish Council

APB Designs Ltd

Applestone Homes

AR Testot

Arlington Dent Services

Armstrong Burton Planning

Arts Council West Midlands

ASDA

Ashram Housing

ASRA Midland Housing Association Ltd

Association of Black Country Authorities

Avenue Bowling Club

Aztec Design Limited

Baginton Parish Council

Baker Associates

Barberry Coventry Ltd

Barton Wilmore LLP

Barwood Land and Estates Ltd.

Beechwood & Westwood Gardens Residents Association

Beechwood LTC

Beechwood Tree Services

Belgrave Residents Association

Bellway Estates

Berkswell Parish Council

Bidwells

Binley Woods Parish Council

Birmingham and Midland Institute (MADE)

Birmingham International Airport

Bishopgate Residents Association

Bloor Homes Ltd

Blue Mark Developments

Brandon and Bretford Parish Council

BREEAM Centre BRE

British Geological Survey

British Waterways, West Midlands office

Brook Street Tenants Association

Brooke Smith Planning

Brooklands Residents Association

Brooks Street Tenents Association

BT Group PLC

Building Consultancy Service

Building Design Services

Building Plan Services

Burnett Planning and development ltd

Burton Green Residents Association

Callingham Architects

Campaign to Protect Rural England (West Midlands Region)

CAMRA

Canal Basin Community Group

Canal Basin Trust

Cannon Park Community Association

Capita Symonds formerly Andrew Martin Associates

CBRE

CCG

CDR Architects

Central Networks

Centro

CgMs Consulting

Chapelfields Area Residents & Traders Association

Chartered Surveyor

Charterhouse Residents Group

City College

Civil Aviation Authority

Clerk to Fillongley Parish Council

Clifford Bridge Community Association

Colliers CRE

Colliers CRE

Colliers International

Combe Fields Parish Council

Community Based Economic Development

Concept Planning

Coombe Field Parish Council

Corley Parish Council

Corstorphine & Wright

Country Landowners Association

Coventrians RFC

Coventry & North Warks CC

Coventry & Warwickshire Accessible Transport Committee

Coventry Airport

Coventry and District Rifle and Pistol Asociation

Coventry Bangladesh Centre

Coventry Canal Society

Coventry Cathedral

Coventry Community Empowerment Network (CEN) Steering Group

Coventry Community Transport

Coventry Cruising Club

Coventry Earth Spirit

Coventry First

Coventry Godiva Harriers

Coventry Haven

Coventry Health Group

Coventry Ki Society

Coventry Music Theatre Consortium

Coventry Neighbourhood Watch

Coventry Old peoples Forum

Coventry Older Peoples Forum

Coventry Older Voices

Coventry Partnership

Coventry RFC

Coventry Safety Action Group

Coventry Society

Coventry Society For The Blind

Coventry Technical RFC

Coventry University

Coventry Youth Service Democracy Project

Coventry,Solihull & Warwickshire Partnership

CPRE Warwickshire

Cromwell and Duggins Lane Residents Association

Cross & Craig Associates Architects

Cushman & Wakefield

CV One Ltd

D & P Holt Ltd

D2 Planning

Dalia & Nathaniel Lichfield Associated

Darnton Elgee Architects

Daventry Road Buildings Traders Association

David Lock Associates

David Robotham Limited

David Wilson Estates

David Wilson Partnership

Day Lewis Planning Limited

Day Lewis Planning Limited

Decathlon

Deeley Properties Homes Ltd

Define Planning

Delta Planning

Department for Transport

Derbyshire Gypsy Liaison Group

DESC Agency

Design 2 Detail Ltd

Dev Plan Ltd

Development Department Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust

DfT Rail,

Director of Planning Prospects Ltd Director of Public Health, NHS Warwickshire and Warwickshire County Council

DNT Technology

DPG East Midlands

Drivers Jonas

DTZ

DTZ Debenham Thorpe

DTZ Pieda Consulting

DW Plan Services

E on Energy

Earlsdon Community Forum

Earlsdon Conservation & Development

Earlsdon RFC

Earlsdon Street Traders Association

Easyplan

ECHO (Earlsdon Chapefields Hearsall Opinion) Community Newspaper

Edge and Ellison

Edgwick Residents

Edmund Kirby

EE

Elmwood Court (Coventry) Residents Association

Entec UK Ltd

Environment Agency

Eon

Estates Business Agency

Faulkner House Residents FFT Planning, Friends, Families and Travellers and Traveller Law Reform Project Community Base

Finham Ratepayers Association

Finham Residents Assoc

First City Ltd

Firstplan Ltd

Fisher German

Forestry Commission

Formerly Browns Lane Residents Association

Framptons

Frank Price Architectural

Free Action Group

Friends of Canley Ford

Friends of Lake View Park

Friends Of Whoberley Hall

FTA - Midlands, West & Wales

Fusion Online

Fusion Online Ltd

Gallagher UK

Gallagher Uk Ltd

Gazey Properties

GB Gittins

Gerald Eve LLP

GL Hearn

Gosford Asian Group

Gosford Park Residents Association

Greater Warwickshire Sport Partnership

Green Lane Residents Association

Gregory Gray Associates

Groundwork West Midlands

Guru Nanak Prakash Sikh Temple

GVA

GVA Grimley

Gypsy Council

Hadland Young

Hancock Town Planning

Harris Lamb Property Consultancy

Hawkesbury Residents' Association

HB Architects

Head of Planning and Construction, DE Operations North

Henley College

Highway Sports and Social Club

Highways Agency

Hillfields 12 Tenants Association

Hilltop Ladies Bridge Club

Historic England

Holt Property

Home Builders Federation

Howkins & Harrison

Hurst Road Residents Association

Hutchison 3G UK Ltd

Iceni Projects

IM Properties PLC

Internal Waterways Association

Jacobs Babtie

Jaguar Land Rover

James O'Flanagan Ltd

James O'Flanagan Ltd

JMW Planning Solutions Ltdl

Job Centre Plus

John Tofts Residents Association

JOHNSON BROS COVENTRY LTD

Jones Day

Jones Lang LaSalle

Jones Lang LaSalle

Jones Lang LaSalle

JTS Partnership

JW Wroe

KB Benfield & Co (Midlands) Ltd

KB Design Services

Kenilworth Town Council

Keresley Newland Library

Keresley Parish Church

Keresley Parish Council

Kingswood Homes

Kirkwells - town planning and sustainable development consultants

Knight Frank LLP

Knight Frank LLP

Lambert Smith Hampton

Lambert Smith Hampton

Landmark Information Group Ltd

LIBRARY SUPPLY INTERNATIONAL LTD

LM Uzzell Designs (Kenilworth) Ltd

Longford CAN

Loveitts Estate Agents

Malcolm Scott Associates

Marrons: Hallam Land Management and (prev Stoneleigh Planning)

Martin Bramwich Associates

Martin Robeson Planning Practice

Martin Robeson Planning Practice

Masefields

McCarthy and Stone

Meadow House Residents Group

Meriden Parish Council

Mewies Engineering

Mewies Engineering Consultants

Michael Partridge Partnership

Michael Ramus Architects Ltd

Midland Heart

Midland Heart

Mike de Courcey Travel limited

Mobile Operators Association

Montagu Evans LLP

Moors BDC

Morris Homes

Mount Nod Residents Association

MVM Planning

Nailcote and Conway Residents Association

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners

National Air Traffic Service

National Farmers Union - West Midlands Region

National Grid Land and and Business Support

National Grid plc

National Playing Fields Association

Natural England

Nehemiah Housing Association

Neighbourhood Management North West

Network Rail

New Deal For Communities

New St Brays Residents Association

NHS England

North Warwickshire Borough Council

Norton Hill Residents Association

Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council

O2 UK LTD

Old Coventrians RFC

Old Spon Street Community Association

Older People's Information Network (OPIN)

Orbit Housing Association

Pailton Parish Council

Paul Bryan Housing Grants

PCPT Architects Limited

PD Simons and Co Ltd

Peacock and Smith

Pegasus Planning Group

Persimmon Homes Central

Peter Denny Architectural Design Consultants

Peugeot Citroen

PJ Planning

Plan Tech

Pridmore Residents

Pridmore residents Association

Primrose Park Estate Resident's Association

PRO Vision Planning & Design

PVC Group

R John Craddock Associates

Radford & District Business Association

Radford Community Association

Radford Diamond Community Centre

Ramblers' Association

Rapleys Town Planning Consultancy

Ray Pinder Design

RCA Regeneration

RCA Regeneration Ltd.

RCI Design

Redrow Homes (Midlands) Ltd

rg+p Ltd

Rivermead Residents Association

Robert Payne

RPS Planning & Development

RSL Planning Consortium

RSPB

Rugby Borough Council

Ryton on Dunsmore Parish Council

Sarah Coulthard

Savills

Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick & Co Ltd

Serck Controls

Severn Trent Water

Seymour Harris

SGP

SH Arch Reynolds

SH Architectural Services Ltd

Shilton Parish council

Shortland Horne

Singer Residents Group

Skelly & Couch

Smith Stuart Reynolds Smiths Gore (acts for The Queens College Oxford who have a landholding at Keresley formerly represented by Cluttons)

Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

Southfields Community Action Group

Sowe Waste residents Association

Spawforths

Spon End and Chapelfields Community Forum

Spon End Forum

Spon End Residents Association

Sport England West Midlands

SSA Planning Ltd

St Benedict's Stay Late Club

St Pauls Residents Association

STAG (Stonehouse Tenant Action Group)

Standard Triumph Sports Club

Starley House Co-Operative

Starley Road Housing Co-operative

Stephens and Scown

Stewart Ross Associates

Stoford Developments

Stoke Aldermoor Residents Association

Stoke Old Boys RFC

Stoke Park Residents Group

Stonehouse Chartered Surveyors

Stoneleigh Parish Council

Stratford on Avon District Council

Stratus Environmental Limited

Styvechale and District Residents Association

Sustrans

Sutton Stop Residents Association

Terrano Land & Development

Terry O'Neill ARIBA

Tesco Stores Ltd

TETLOW KING PLANNING

The Art of Building Limited

The Coal Authority

The Design Buro

The Design Studio

The Drawing House

The Garden History Society

The Grasmere Group

The Lawn Tennis Association

The National Trust

The Open Space Society

The Planning Bureau Limited

The Rosconn Group

The Sandstone Group

The Theatres Trust

Three Spires Bowling Club

Tile Hill Residents Association

Town Planning Consultancy Ltd

Travel Coventry

Trustee of the Brian Faul Foundation

Turley Associates

Turley Associates

Turley Associates

Turnberry Consulting

TurnberryPlanning Limited

Tyler Parkes Partnership

U3A

United Mossdale Project

University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire

University of Warwick

Urbanissta

Virgin Mobile

VLH Associates

Vodafone and O2

Walsgrave Parochial Church Council

Walsgrave Rest and Play

Warwick District Council

Warwickshire County Council

Warwickshire PCT

Warwickshire Police

Warwickshire Wildlife Trust

Warwickshire Wildlife Trust C/O WATCH

WATCH

Watch Limited

Websdale Residents

West Midlands Ambulance Service

West Midlands Counter Terrorism Unit

West Midlands Police

White Young Green Planning

Whitefriars Housing Group

Whitley Residents and Neighbourhood Watch Association

Willenhall Community Forum

William Davis Ltd

Wimpey Homes - Development Director

Winifred Avenue Residents Association

Woodland Trust

Woodlands Residents Association

Wyken Green Residents Association

YMD Boon Ltd

Appendix 2: How responses influenced the Local Plan