Q-V3.1: Do you agree that the Vision and Strategic Objectives are appropriate?
No answer given
For detailed comments see Barton Willmore, now Stantec, letter dated 6 March 2023 and email dated 6 March 2023 with enclosures. Additional comments as follows: The strategic objectives are broadly supported, and we consider they will combine to promote sustainable development within South Warwickshire in line with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). However, in our view there is a need for the SWLP to be more visionary and clearer in its objectives that relate to growth. For example, reference to ‘allowing for growth in new homes’ to meet needs should be strengthened to reflect Paragraph 60 of the NPPF which refers to the need to support the Government’s objective of ‘significantly boosting the supply of homes’. We would also comment that there is a need to encourage employment growth and job creation. There is a need for up to date data to inform the level of growth to be planned for. Moreover a positive approach that enables existing businesses, such as CEMEX, to invest, expand and adapt as per the NPPF Paragraph 80.
Countryside Properties consider that the proposed Vision is appropriate in general terms. However, the proposed Vision makes reference to meeting unmet need from neighbouring authorities, and Countryside Properties consider it would be more appropriate to reference meeting unmet need from the wider Housing Market Areas. Whilst Birmingham and the Black Country authorities are not neighbouring authorities of South Warwickshire, they do form part of the same Housing Market Area and therefore should not be excluded.
Bloor Homes consider that the proposed Vision is appropriate in general terms. However, the proposed Vision makes reference to meeting unmet need from neighbouring authorities, and Bloor Homes consider it would be more appropriate to reference meeting unmet need from the wider Housing Market Areas. Whilst Birmingham and the Black Country authorities are not neighbouring authorities of South Warwickshire, they do form part of the same Housing Market Area and therefore should not be excluded.
No answer given
For detailed comments see Barton Willmore, now Stantec, letter dated 6 March 2023 and email dated 6 March 2023 with enclosures. Additional comments as follows: The strategic objectives are broadly supported, and we consider they will combine to promote sustainable development within South Warwickshire in line with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). However, in our view there is a need for the SWLP to be more visionary and clearer in its objectives that relate to growth. For example, reference to ‘allowing for growth in new homes’ to meet needs should be strengthened to reflect Paragraph 60 of the NPPF which refers to the need to support the Government’s objective of ‘significantly boosting the supply of homes’.
Bloor Homes consider that the proposed Vision is appropriate in general terms. However, the proposed Vision makes reference to meeting unmet need from neighbouring authorities, and Bloor Homes consider it would be more appropriate to reference meeting unmet need from the wider Housing Market Areas. Whilst Birmingham and the Black Country authorities are not neighbouring authorities of South Warwickshire, they do form part of the same Housing Market Area and therefore should not be excluded.
Some responses suggested prioritising certain objectives over others, especially delivering homes, and climate change. The whole plan should be connected for all areas.
Yes, MacMic Group consider that the proposed Vision is appropriate in general terms. However, the proposed Vision makes reference to meeting unmet need from neighbouring authorities and MacMic Group consider it would be more appropriate to reference meeting unmet needs from the wider Housing Market Areas. Whilst Birmingham and the Black Country authorities are not neighbouring authorities of South Warwickshire, they do form part of the same Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area with a strong interrelationship and connectivity, and therefore should not be excluded.
The statements of intent are too vague to be called Strategic Objectives. They could be interpreted in wildly different ways, without contradicting these statements. The statement on biodiversity is the vaguest of all, and this is a major concern.
There is a conflict between the written principles and the underlying aim to 'provide homes and jobs, boost and diversify the local economy, and provide appropriate infrastructure'. This growth agenda is actually the central principle and yet it is not declared as such. This hidden central aim is on conflict with the overarching principles which emphasise climate change, beauty, health and the environment.
-Yes we agree with the overall vision to meet housing and economic development needs for South Warwickshire to 2050, including where appropriate and agreed, unmet needs from neighbouring authorities. Providing land for homes and jobs in the right places is critical to addressing housing shortfalls and economic needs, and ensuring South Warwickshire is an attractive and dynamic place to live and work. -We also generally agree that the strategic objectives are appropriate.
Q-V3.1 - Yes we agree with the overall vision to meet housing and economic development needs for South Warwickshire to 2050, including where appropriate and agreed, unmet needs from neighbouring authorities. Although we note that the HEDNA evidence base has been prepared up to 2050, we would question whether the Council should consider a longer period given that the NPPF advises that where larger scale developments such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns form part of the strategy for the area, policies should be set within a vision that looks further ahead to at least 30 years. - Providing land for homes and jobs in the right places is critical to addressing housing shortfalls and economic needs, and ensuring South Warwickshire is an attractive and dynamic place to live and work. The principles are laudable and should wherever possible and feasible underpin the delivery of the vision. - We also generally agree that the strategic objectives are appropriate.
No answer given
Infrastructure should be in place before the homes are completed. No mention of integrated transport in S.Warks. Whole are is dependent on cars. Poor bus network. Need additional regional railway stations. EG Harbury. No rail connectivity Kenilworth to Warwick/Leamington/Stratford. No rail connectivity Statford to Leamington or Warwick. Major overhaul of transport vision and strategy required as a priority Homes and schools & social housing next to motorways given what we are learning about air pollution and the impacts on health. You are negligent and not providing a "healthy, safe & inclusive S. Warks"
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
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 answer given
1. This seems too focussed on new buildings. There is not enough support for protecting green spaces that already exist, especially the green belt. This is not just about planting trees, but preserving areas that local people can use to walk, run, and enjoy. Such areas need to be close to where people live; they should not have to drive somewhere to enjoy a walk in a green space. 2. I am less concerned about tourism. The plan should focus on the needs of local people. 3. I support the creation of jobs for existing people. I'm not sure why we should aim to make local towns larger, by attracting new jobs, and creating the new housing developments that would be required.
In parts; protecting the natural and heritage environments but not promoting development.
No answer given
The Vision must help ensure places of worship are supported. Such places are not always wanted by developers nor the NDPs, yet the important part places of worship play in a healthy community is widely acknowledged. The NNPF references their value under Section 6 (Building a strong, competitive economy), Supporting a prosperous rural economy 84 d) and twice under Section 8 (Promoting healthy and safe communities) 93 a) and 97 a) [43]. Without support from the Vision, places of worship could struggle to obtain reasonable sites or planning permission.
The policy being followed by the council belies this supposed vision and considering the countryside has been ravaged by HS2 it makes protecting what now remains of great importance otherwise it will not exist for future generations to enjoy and Warwick/Leamington/Kenilworth will be one entity having absorbed the outer lying villages. Further there is a fallacy in pursuing a net zero policy as without CO2 it would be impossible for us to grow food or for the green belt to survive. Looking back at long term data we appears to be in line for a much colder period rather than the higher ones being alluded to. With the prospect of possible food shortages then surely we should be retaining all productive land for producing food for the people - yet all around farm land is being devoured to provide housing. Green belt was designated for a reason and it should be only under exceptional circumstances that it is even considered rather than being the norm that seems to be the case these days. The proposed development in Leek Wootton is another prime example maximise the number of houses so there's no green space for the residents and lease a section of woodland to cover the shortfall. This shows that revenue is the driver rather than doing what is right and honourable. And it appears that the council are pursuing their own agenda with the sale of Riverside and the demolition of the car park at the back of Tesco's both decision that have been rejected by the people of Warwickshire several times now. The introduction of a "family friendly cycle track" has morphed into a scheme that is likely to have high accidently levels and public nuisance issues as the evening get lights and "bikes" make use of the facilities . So its all well and good saying one thing when you actually appear to be doing anything but following this policy in reality. So the basis this strategic strategy is flawed and compromised by the very action you are pursuing Going forward there had best be full and open transparency as we the people are watching and taking note and what we are seeing is a serious cause for concern over mismanagement and not following policy that is in the peoples interest
Positively responding to the climate emergency and improving biodiversity should be given a pre-eminent paramount status. Unless these fundamental challenges are addressed, achievement of the other principles will be significantly compromised or rendered impossible. The strategic objectives which flow from their current status are insufficiently comprehensive and ambitious. The safeguarding of greenbelt should be explicitly stated. It has a vital role in achieving the vision. It has exercised a hugely positive impact for generations. Its critical continuing role should be acknowledged as a guiding principle or at least as a strategic objective. Avoiding development on the greenbelt should be prioritised at all stages of the planning process.
I have read many good thoughts in this section with which I would agree however I believe that in the Vision and Strategic Objectives it should also be specifically stated that AVOIDING DEVELOPMENT ON THE GREENBELT LAND will be made a PRIORITY at all stages of the plan development and therefore part of the Vision and Objective. Currently the plan shows a bias towards development in the greenbelt. The greenbelt in the area surrounding the village in which I live performs a number of roles: it plays an important part of preventing urban sprawl - providing green space in-between the city, town and village. The greenbelt provides a vital area for all of the wildlife we have in this area, any diminishing of the greenbelt, I believe, will correspond with a decline in the local wildlife and their habitats. The green belt is part of the well being of many people who live in the surrounding city, towns and villages - who come and find refreshment in the greenbelt area. In this area we have already witnessed a diminishing of the fields, trees, wildlife by HS2 development. It is my belief that the protection of the greenbelt should be given higher priority.
all options include development of green belt, this is contrary to your worthy strategic objectives of seeking health, well-being and environmental protection