Despite the objections, the latest proposed policy changes have done nothing to address public concern about development at Coate. Apart from reducing the employment land allocation from 35 ha to 23ha, and stipulating housing density figures at 45 dwellings/hectare, there is no change. It seems incredible that Swindon Borough Council are still earmarking land for 1,800 houses at Coate when they now admit to a surplus of land for 2,533 new homes by 2011. [The amount of land allocated for housing would provide even more but some of this is earmarked for development after 2011]

Moreover they have sneaked in a last minute addition to text that could see another bit of countryside fall into the lap of developers. Whilst this does not relate specifically to Coate it is a staggering relaxation of planning rules. Under an "exceptions" clause, Swindon Borough Council are willing to consider a "peripheral site" for a "large single inward investment" employment site. This proposed change [number 117] is outrageous given the amount of employment land in Swindon already.

So please would you object to these two proposed changes:

----- Pre-Inquiry Change Number 156 and 157

Policy or Paragraph Policy H4 & Justification in paragraph 5.3.18

Paragraph

Objecting

Proposed amendment number 185 [Housing Land supply at 1 October 2003] indicates an oversupply of housing land to 2011 for 2,533 new dwellings. This assumes an underperformance in the Northern Development Area of 175 dwellings when it might overperform.

As such there is a gross oversupply of land given that the Southern Development Area can accommodate 2,350 dwellings in phase III [beyond 2011].

There is no justification to include land for 1,800 dwellings at Coate to 2011 on the grounds that there is no shortfall of deliverable land to 2011 for new homes.

Change sought: remove proposed additional references to housing at Coate from Policy H4 and in the justification proposed for paragraph 5.3.18.

========

Pre-Inquiry Change Number 117

Policy or Paragraph 4.2 AIM

Paragraph 4.2.2

Object: There is no requirement or justification to allow an exceptions direction to permit a large single employment site at a peripheral location outside the urban area. This goes against strategic planning guidance that calls for employment land within the existing urban area of Swindon. There is already a generous supply of employment land to 2011 over and above Structure Plan requirements.

Object that this proposed change is a major revision to the Local Plan at a very late stage in the development plan process.

Change sought: Delete all new text proposed in amendment 117. 14 June 2004

ALSO these:

-----

Pre-Inquiry Change Number 002

Policy or Paragraph 1.4.5

Paragraph 1.4.5

Objecting

Whilst the Structure Plan review to 2016 seeks to establish an acceptable location for a university campus, it does not stipulate that the most sustainable site is at Coate.

Whilst strategic guidance might indicate a preference for Coate. the Local Plan does not indicate, in this proposed amendment, that other sites might prove to be more suitable.

Change sought: remove the words “at Coate” from the proposed amendment.

Pre-Inquiry Change Number 012

Policy or Paragraph DS3 justification

Paragraph 1.16.3

Objecting

The proposed addition to line 19 [ie *It is, however, important that key stakeholders ensure that development of the town centre site does not delay the delivery of the main campus at Coate*] does not clarify the situation whilst it is presumptuous that Coate will be the main campus location.

The wording suggests that the University campus might proceed the development of the central teaching facility of 10,000sqm floor space.

Change sought: delete *….* as above.

Replace with “Should it be considered that a peripherally located site is a sustainable option for a main campus, development will not commence until the central teaching facility is operational.

Pre-Inquiry Change Number 032

Policy or Paragraph 2.7 Strategy

Paragraph 2.7.1

Objecting

Whilst we have no objection to listing higher order facilities suited to a central regeneration framework, educational facilities are missing from the list.

The need for higher order educational facilities in the central area is justified in paragraph 1.16.3 of the Plan.

Change sought: Add after “higher order civic, cultural, leisure” ,EDUCATIONAL

Pre-Inquiry Change Number 198

Policy or Paragraph Policy ENV10 [vii]

Paragraph Urban Area inset map at Triangle Site

Objecting to the removal of the landscape designation of land known as the Triangle Site. Designating land for employment use [under proposed policy E5] is contrary to strategic guidance for development at Swindon that was directed to the NDA, SDA and EXISTING urban sites.

Change sought: retain ENV10[vii] notation