Q-V3.1: Do you agree that the Vision and Strategic Objectives are appropriate?
No provision should be made for gypsies. [Redacted] The vision concerning net-zero is too limited. It fails to take account of: (a) building materials and processes (concrete being highly carbon contributing) (b) the effect of the loss of land as carbon reducers (farmland, etc.) (c) the impact on the environment driven by the location and use of any development.
The process is flawed. Strategic Objectives 4 and 5 strive for health, wellbeing and environmental protection yet all of the proposed growth options presume Green Belt development. Other options should have been put forward to ensure Strategic Objectives 4 and 5 can be better met.
No. The greenbelt land to the north of Leamington is vital to the health and wellbeing of the local population. It should not be being proposed for building on.
No answer given
No answer given
The local plan process is seriously flawed as strategic objectives of 'Meeting Sustainable Development Needs' and 'Protecting and Enhancing our environmental assets' are contradictory to the underlying Spatial Growth options being proposed in the consultation document (as well as the 'Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill' currently running as a parallel consultation process by UK Government) The UK Government are proposing that local planning authorities are not required to review and alter Green Belt boundaries if this would be the only way of meeting housing need in full. And that there is a commitment in the Levelling Up White Paper to bringing forward measures to ‘green’ the Green Belt, to improve its environmental and recreational value. In contrast, the South Warwickshire local plan 'Issues and options' consultation is only proposing Spatial growth options that have development within the green belt, despite having previously explored development options where Green Belt development was not allowed.
No answer given
Objectives 4 and 5 for health, wellbeing and environmental protection will not be met by the proposed Green Belt development. Other options should have been considered.
There is no detail. It is very high level and broad brush and I am cynical as I think the whole "green credentials" are developer rhubarb. They mean more houses, more roads and pollution and the further destruction of the Warks countryside.
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
Where is the focus on protecting the countryside which is a key reason why Kenilworth attracts visitors
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
All of the proposed growth options assume development of Green Belt land in North Leamington. This is a fundamental flaw in the process. The thought that Green Belt designation can simply be overridden without valid reasoning is illogical. Furthermore, there is no consideration of other options that would meet the Strategic Objectives stated in the Plan.
No answer given
Argument 8. The process is flawed. Objectives 4 and 5 talk about health and wellbeing yet the proposal to build on greenbelt land would eradicate well used walking paths, destroy what is left post HS2, of local land along the Avon and put further strain on diminishing wildlife communities. Other alternatives should be put forward.
Whilst the key principles are sound there is no mention of prioritising developments that actually also ensure the protection of the most vulnerable green belt land between conurbations to both prevent urban sprawl and the loss of community identities. A recognition that major infrastructure schemes currently in progress ie. HS2 should also not lead to the redefinition of green space boundaries. Links to current reviews 'MasterPlan' focusing on South Coventry. On behalf Cubbington Parish Council
The process is flawed. Strategic Objectives 4 and 5 strive for health, well-being and environmental protection yet all of the proposed growth options presume Green Belt development. Other options should have been put forward to ensure Strategic Objectives 4 and 5 can be better met.
The broad concepts provided herein do not really provide the "level of detail" eluded to in the description. Strategic Objectives typically have specific targets, but these have been omitted from this document, which makes it quite meaningless. One core issue is that there are no clear time targets. e.g. "Providing infrastructure in the right place at the right time Ensuring that the infrastructure needed to support the growth in new homes and jobs is secured through new development, and is provided when people need it" Firstly, the phrase "when people need it" could be interpreted in multiple ways. Secondly, there is no time frame between the identification of a "need" and the actual provision being provided. Therefore a need could be identified but not resolved for an indefinite amount of time. A suggested alteration could be: "Once a need has been identified, we aim to resolve the matter within 12-24 months" (or something to that effect). Furthermore, due to the housing already built, it could be argued that people already "need" better infrastructure, therefore it might be better to have the infrastructure completed alongside the growth in home rather than when someone arbitrarily decides it is "needed" after building work has been completed. What seems to have happened in other areas is that by the time a "need" is identified, it takes a long time for the associated work to be completed, therefore creating a period disruption and concern (the schooling issue in Warwick at Myton School demonstrates the problem with no forward infrastructure planning). However, using predictive modelling, it is possible to estimate the types of infrastructure needs that will arise alongside any new builds and therefore it is appropriate to include a few infrastructure goals within this Vision and Strategic Objectives document. It may also be worth considering providing more details on the types or forms of infrastructure that you envision prioritising as part of any development and give a time frame e.g. for every 500 houses built, we predict that additional healthcare and education facilities will be required, therefore we intend to expand some of the current facilities and, where necessary, provide new sites. Furthermore, there aren't any specific amounts provided in any of these points. E.g. "Protecting and enhancing our environmental assets" speaks about tree planting, but that could be anything from 2 trees to entire forests. A rough percentage of land that you intend to dedicate to such an initiative would make this "vision for the local plan" more meaningful. The examples provided above are just some of the areas that could require from more specific details. However, it would be worth checking every point to ensure that there the level of detail expected in such a document has been included.
No it’s not appropriate as Strategic objectives 4 & 5 are to secure well-being, health and environmental protection which is at odds with the fact that all of the options include building on green belt. Alternatives should be provided.
Must address infrastructure elements that are the responsibility of either County Council, Local Health Authority or Central Government
No answer given
There is a fundamental issue in that the proposals all assume Green belt development which is by definition contrary to the alleged objectives, particularly no. 4. Other options should have been considered eg Brown Site development to achieve such objectives. You mention the changing role of the town centre, why not redevelop parts of them for residential use, such as is happening in London and other cities. The size of the change is all proportionate to each area.
I agree with the aims of the Vision. However, I believe there is a disconnect between the Vision and the Strategic Objectives, and the wider proposals in the Plan. Setting a Plan up to 2050 is perhaps too ambitious. A lot will change between now and then and there is a need to include opportunities to flex the Plan at various points on the journey to 2050. The exact timeline for growth of housing stock is also unclear. For example, what growth will need to be achieved by 2030 or 2040? The Plan should include milestones to review progress against and assess if the Plan needs to be amended considering changes, such as demographic, economic or environmental developments. It is unclear how much local communities will have a say in future development via this Plan and once it is adopted. Local decision making is of fundamental importance and should be upheld in this Plan, rather than as currently seems ignored. Similarly, it is unclear what the difference between Neighbourhood Development Plans and Area Action Plans are and which option would enable greater flexibility for local decision making within the context of the Plan once it is adopted. I don't believe the Plan is ambitious enough on creating a 'A climate resilient and Net Zero Carbon South Warwickshire.' It's difficult to comment on how the Plan will deliver 'A well-connected South Warwickshire' as the Plan does not put forward an effective transport strategy to achieve this. For example, there has been no analysis of current or potential future train capacity in relation to housing options. This seems a surprising omission, considering this is key to one of the Plan's main strategic growth options. The Vision of 'A biodiverse and environmentally resilient South Warwickshire' and 'Contributing towards Net Zero Carbon targets' are contradicted by proposals to develop on the Greenbelt. 'Providing infrastructure in the right place at the right time' and 'A healthy, safe and inclusive South Warwickshire' are not supported by the housing development plans in the Plan. For example, plans for the development of new housing seem to be divorced from other human needs. For example, there seems to be no indication in the Plan about the impact on local services and how they will need to grow to meet new housing requirements. This includes schools, health facilities (GPs and hospitals), police and fire services, employment opportunities, transport links and leisure and wellbeing options. These facilities need to be planned and built in sync with any extra housing. 'Developing opportunities for jobs' is not necessarily supported by the Plan. There is a lack of clarity about economic growth expectations and the future required housing and business site needs to meet future economic realities. When considering employment options, it would also be good for the Plan or an accompanying policy document to consider the education and skills needs of the local economy and population both now and in the future. 'Delivering homes that meet the needs of all our communities' - It is not clear how this Plan will ensure affordable housing options are secured in any of the envisaged new housing scenarios. 'Protecting and enhancing our heritage and cultural assets' - There is no assurance in the Plan as to how heritage conservation areas, such as the one in Henley-In-Arden, will be respected and enhanced. Even if there is no building planned in this area, greater housing density across Henley is likely to have a profound negative impact on this specific area and others across South Warwickshire. I would question the short timeframe between the close of this consultation and the opening of the next consultation. The Preferred Options Consultation is planned to run from July-October 2023. Is this really enough time to consider all the feedback from this current consultation and properly reflect on whether modifications to the current Plan need to be made?
The plan is presumptive of massive development. The statements made pay lip service to each issue but the end result will unavoidably ride rough-shod over them. It s unrealistic to expect these targets to be able to be met as they are incompatible with the scale of development being considered.