Q-I4.1: Should we include a policy to safeguard specific infrastructure schemes within the SWLP?
2.19. Yes. The Respondent considers it sensible to include a policy that safeguards land that will facilitate the delivery of key infrastructure projects where this is justified. The Respondent recognises that safeguarding would be difficult to achieve post adoption of the SWLP and is best considered at an early stage of the plan preparation process to ensure that the growth strategy is capable of being delivered.
Yes. This is important to enable the delivery of the proposed infrastructure improvements.
Land has been safeguarded in the Core Strategy in respect of large scale, strategic development that requires specific infrastructure delivery to enable these sites to be brought forward. In the case of the Stratford on Avon (SoA) Core Strategy, strategic growth areas such as Long Marston Airfield (LMA) provide a key form of housing delivery and will continue to do so over the long term, with an aspiration to provide 3,500 dwellings. It is therefore considered appropriate in this case that the safeguarding of land to deliver the Stratfordupon-Avon South Western Relief Road (SWRR) continues, reflecting the designed and planned scheme in this location as one possible solution to managing transport and traffic capacity to the south of Stratford. This will ensure the option to deliver the SWRR is not prejudiced by other development along the route. Whilst it is important that the land identified for the SWRR is safeguarded, Cala strongly considers that the delivery of the SWRR should not impede upon the delivery of interim phases at LMA. LMA is a brownfield site which is already delivering new homes, and therefore the priority of development, and latent highway capacity, in the south of the subregion should be directed and allocated towards LMA where possible. In a similar manner, the route of the former railway line south from Stratford to Long Marston is safeguarded as part of Policy CS.26 in the existing Core Strategy, and this should also be carried forward. This provides a presumption against development that would prejudice the reinstatement of the railway on this route. It provides a significant opportunity to provide a locally important sustainable transport corridor, depending on any scheme advanced. This safeguarding includes a potential new station on the site of Long Marston Garden Village, also safeguarded within policy. Cala is fully committed to the delivery of LMA, which is demonstrated through its planning applications submitted to date and an upcoming planning application in respect of Phase 1bat LMA.
i. The route safeguarding of the railway south of Stratford upon Avon station to Honeybourne is supported and consistent with National Planning Policy Guidance, 2021, para 106. ii. Stratford District Council, (together with Wychavon, Cotswold, Tewkesbury and Cheltenham Councils), has consistently safeguarded the route of the former Stratford-Long Marston-Oxford/Worcester/Cheltenham railway line, for reinstatement of the railway in its Local Plan since 1992, in which the western half of the former trackbed was protected for reinstatement of a single track railway and the eastern half for the cycleway/pedestrian Greenway. iii. The Stratford Core Strategy Inspector’s Report, 2016, considered that reinstatement of the southbound rail link would:- “provide a long-term solution to the town’s traffic congestion.” (248-257). “There can be no question that the service would provide a sustainable alternative to the use of the private car for many residents and Visitors.” iv. The South Warwickshire Local Plan therefore needs to be proactive and actively support reinstatement of the Stratford-Honeybourne railway. To do otherwise would be against the Core Strategy Inspector’s Report Recommendations. v. A key objective of the Local Plan must be to reduce the car dependency by south Warwickshire residents to access these rail services and a key objective of the Stratford Transport Strategy, 2018. Restoration of the southbound rail link from Stratford-upon-Avon to the North Cotswold Line must be a key priority of the South Warwickshire Local Plan to achieve this objective. vi. The ‘Long Marston Airfield Garden Village – Expression of Interest, July 2016’, Stratford DC/Cala Homes, contained 12 positive references to the benefits of reinstatement of the Stratford-Honeybourne rail link. It formed the basis for the Government’s subsequent granting of Garden Village status in 2017. It will deliver 3,500 homes/8,750 people. The Stratford-Honeybourne corridor, already has a committed population of 25,000 people. vii. Road transport is already responsible for 80% of Nitrogen Dioxide emissions, which kill over approximately 29,000 deaths UK pa are linked with air pollution associated with road traffic. Rail accounts for 1.6%. viii. Road traffic currently accounts for 72% of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transport (73% of passenger-kilometres), aviation accounts for 14% (8% of passenger-kilometres), and rail accounts for less than 1% (6% of passenger-kilometres).* * European Environment Agency (2019), ‘Share of transport greenhouse gas emissions’, data visualization.
No answer given
No answer given
Q-I4.1 Should we include a policy to safeguard specific infrastructure schemes within the SWLP? Yes, in part. We consider that it is appropriate for a policy to safeguard specific infrastructure schemes within the SWLP, where those infrastructure schemes have been evidenced through the plan making process. Where infrastructure schemes have not been evidenced, it would be inappropriate for the plan to specify and safeguard such schemes, since these would not be justified having regard to the tests of soundness embedded in the NPPF. Where specific infrastructure schemes are safeguarded, the policy must be sufficiently flexible to be adaptable to changing circumstances. For example, one such infrastructure scheme which may be safeguarded is the improvement of the A46 at Bishopton and Wildmoor junctions. We are aware that scheme proposals for junction improvements are evolving, and the land take required may change over time. Where a plan showing the extent of safeguarding is embedded in the SWLP it should be made clear that the precise extent of safeguarding may change (either extending or shrinking) due to changing circumstances.
Q-I4.1 Should we include a policy to safeguard specific infrastructure schemes within the SWLP? Yes, in part. We consider that it is appropriate for a policy to safeguard specific infrastructure schemes within the SWLP, where those infrastructure schemes have been evidenced through the plan making process. Where infrastructure schemes have not been evidenced, it would be inappropriate for the plan to specify and safeguard such schemes, since these would not be justified having regard to the tests of soundness embedded in the NPPF. Where specific infrastructure schemes are safeguarded, the policy must be sufficiently flexible to be adaptable to changing circumstances. For example, one such infrastructure scheme which may be safeguarded is the improvement of the A46 at Bishopton and Wildmoor junctions. We are aware that scheme proposals for junction improvements are evolving, and the land take required may change over time. Where a plan showing the extent of safeguarding is embedded in the SWLP it should be made clear that the precise extent of safeguarding may change (either extending or shrinking) due to changing circumstances.
Q-I4.1: Should we include a policy to safeguard specific infrastructure schemes within the SWLP? 3.16 Yes, Rainier would welcome a policy in the emerging Plan that seeks to safeguard specific infrastructure schemes across South Warwickshire. 3.17 Paragraph 11 of the NPPF states that growth and infrastructure should be aligned and as such a safeguarding infrastructure policy is required in the emerging Plan, to align with the strategic growth policies. This approach would also support the overarching Vision and Objectives of the Plan.
Q-I4.1: Should we include a policy to safeguard specific infrastructure schemes within the SWLP? It is noted that the SA location plans include the safeguarded land areas identified as part of the High Speed Rail 2 (HS2) project. It is considered appropriate to include a policy within the Local Plan to safeguard this land. The need for such policies should however be kept under review during the course of the production of the Local Plan to respond to the need / opportunity for the delivery of specific infrastructure schemes (e.g. A46 Strategic Link Road) to ensure that the Local Plan is appropriately planning for, and mitigating the delivery of, development requirements and impacts from both within and adjacent to the Local Plan area. Q-I4.2: Please add any comments you wish to make about these specific safeguarding provisions Any safeguarding policy for HS2, or other identified infrastructure schemes, should include a mechanism for safeguarded land to be considered for an alternative use once it is no-longer required, subject to the requirements of other Local Plan policies.
Part 4 of the Draft Plan identifies a series of existing infrastructure schemes proposed across both plan areas. It is our view that it would be sensible to include a policy in the SWLP to guide the schemes. The policy should confirm the location of the works, which should be identified on the Policy Map, and the extent of the work involved. There should be a clear commitment to their delivery and an explanation as to how they will be funded. It should also be clear if developments are expected to contribute towards schemes as part of their planning obligation package. In addition, as referred to earlier in our submission, it is likely that there will be site specific infrastructure requirements for certain allocations. These should be identified in the allocation policy and, where appropriate, the allocation policy should cross-refer to wider strategic infrastructure projects where specific contributions are expected.
3.7 Land at South of Main Street, Tiddington is not dependent on any infrastructure that would require safeguarding.
Part 4 of the Draft Plan identifies a series of existing infrastructure schemes proposed across both plan areas. It is our view that it would be sensible to include a policy in the SWLP to guide the schemes. The policy should confirm the location of the works, which should be identified on the Policy Map, and the extent of the work involved. There should be a clear commitment to their delivery and an explanation as to how they will be funded. It should also be clear if developments are expected to contribute towards schemes as part of their planning obligation package.
Terra agree with the general principle of safeguarding land to deliver infrastructure schemes. This strategy was taken within the Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy where the Council identified a number of projects. However, some projects, namely the Stratford South Western Relief Road, have yet to be realised due to environmental and physical constraints as well as fundamental funding gaps. Further, a number of the allocations within the Core Strategy have been held to the delivery of the Relief Road which has compromised their delivery. Terra agree it is important to forward Plan for fundamental infrastructure projects and appropriately safeguard land in order to realised them, but Terra would caution the Councils relying on the delivery of these projects too heavily prior to assessing the realistic deliverability.
Yes, in part. We consider that it is appropriate for a policy to safeguard specific infrastructure schemes within the SWLP, where those infrastructure schemes have been evidenced through the plan making process. Where infrastructure schemes have not been evidenced, it would be inappropriate for the plan to specify and safeguard such schemes, since these would not be justified having regard to the tests of soundness embedded in the NPPF. Where specific infrastructure schemes are safeguarded, the policy must be sufficiently flexible to be adaptable to changing circumstances. For example, one such infrastructure scheme which may be safeguarded is the improvement of the A46 at Bishopton and Wildmoor junctions. We are aware that scheme proposals for junction improvements are evolving, and the land take required may change over time. Where a plan showing the extent of safeguarding is embedded in the SWLP it should be made clear that the precise extent of safeguarding may change (either extending or shrinking) due to changing circumstances.
Wellesbourne Matters supports a policy to safeguard specific infrastructure schemes such as airfields and airports, in line with the criteria set down by the Government. Wellesbourne airfield with its continued use by both Military and Emergency Services aviation assets meets the requirements for being safeguarded. Safeguarding ensures that viability or lack thereof, in one set of circumstances is no indicator of a lack of viability in another set of circumstances. The rail infrastructure that was lost after the Dr Beeching cuts, shows that nobody can be certain of what the future holds. The current viability of an infrastructure asset brings forward the idea of sustainability which the United Nations Brundtland Commission defined as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
There are a series of existing infrastructure schemes proposed across both plan areas. It would be sensible to include a policy in the plan confirming the nature and location of these schemes.
No answer given
Land within the Green Belt should not be safeguarded for future infrastructure schemes
Q-I4.1 Should we include a policy to safeguard specific infrastructure schemes within the SWLP? Yes, in part. We consider that it is appropriate for a policy to safeguard specific infrastructure schemes within the SWLP, where those infrastructure schemes have been evidenced through the plan making process. Where infrastructure schemes have not been evidenced, it would be inappropriate for the plan to specify and safeguard such schemes, since these would not be justified having regard to the tests of soundness embedded in the NPPF. Where specific infrastructure schemes are safeguarded, the policy must be sufficiently flexible to be adaptable to changing circumstances. For example, one such infrastructure scheme which may be safeguarded is the improvement of the A46 at Bishopton and Wildmoor junctions. We are aware that scheme proposals for junction improvements are evolving, and the land take required may change over time. Where a plan showing the extent of safeguarding is embedded in the SWLP it should be made clear that the precise extent of safeguarding may change (either extending or shrinking) due to changing circumstances.
Although happy to safeguard infrastructure schemes, they should be considered as part of a districtwide strategy before implementation.
Yes, but this should be subject to continuing review of the appropriateness of the protected schemes. Just because a scheme is safeguarded should not automatically mean that it should have priority in respect of implementation throughout the plan period, nor preclude identification of further schemes should the decision be made to proceed with a two-part plan.
Yes, but this should be subject to continuing review of the appropriateness of the protected schemes. Just because a scheme is safeguarded should not automatically mean that it should have priority in respect of implementation throughout the plan period, nor preclude identification of further schemes should the decision be made to proceed with a two-part plan.
Q-I4.1: If proposed growth can only come forward with the provision of key infrastructure which will require land, it would seem appropriate for this to be safeguarded within the Local Plan. We would expect areas required safeguarding to become apparent at the next stage of consultation when we will consider in more detail specific potential development locations and growth size. Q-I4.2: With reference to Emerging Site Allocations Plan and the A46 Safeguarding we ask if the Marraway junction should also be included or have National Highways confirmed that no improvement at this location would require land to be safeguarded? Although we recognise that the Plan is still at a relatively early stage of development, we would like to note that there may be a number of future transport schemes which would benefit from safeguarding within the Local Plan to ensure these opportunities are not lost as a result of growth. Examples include the potential for a new rail station/interchange/park and ride to serve the University of Warwick (also known as ‘Coventry South’), the preferred route of the A46 Link Road and the Stoneleigh Business Park Strategic Access Improvements. We understand that Midlands Connect will be making a similar submission regarding the future doubling of the Leamington Spa to Coventry rail line, which we also strongly support.
Yes. The Respondent considers it sensible to include a policy that safeguards land that will facilitate the delivery of key infrastructure projects where this is justified. The Respondent recognises that safeguarding would be difficult to achieve post adoption of the SWLP and is best considered at an early stage of the plan preparation process to ensure that the growth strategy is capable of being delivered.