Q-I5: Please add any comments you wish to make about infrastructure, viability and deliverability
The current infrastructure within Warwick District for roads, public transport, utilities and communications is inadequate. The levels of growth envisaged in the plan will make this worse. Levels of growth should be reduced to make it more realistic that adequate infrastructure will be provided.
The SWLP should focus on the ability to enhance existing transport infrastructure, with an emphasis on rail and good access. The reality is that, by the end of the plan period, the majority of journeys will be made by a mix of private electric vehicles and public transport. Railways and stations provide a pre-existing HUB, normally within an active service centre, where public and private transport most effectively and efficiently meet. Pre-existing transport infrastructure underpins viability and deliverability and sustainable growth should occur around transport hubs. This then has multi-benefits. Take the example of Henley-in-Arden - sustainable growth will revitalise a declining settlement, reinvigorating services, facilities and providing for major investment into infrastructure, notably active movement, environment, heritage, community etc, thus providing for an upward spiral of re-investment. Henley-in-Arden's existing public transport infrastructure would be greatly enhanced, providing for sustainable movement patterns locally, regionally and nationally. As major transport (and other) infrastructure is in place and the settlement is well-located with excellent access, investment can focus on enhancement, thus providing for greater viability. It is for this reason that we strongly support the spatial strategy set-out in the SWLP Issues and Options documentation, which identified Henley-in-Arden’s five spatial growth options under consideration.Further, the availability of significant tracts of land for biodiversity net gain, heritage enhancement, employment, development, infrastructure improvements etc, all within a single ownership with a willing landowner, focused on legacy development, provides for deliverability. Viability and deliverability are essential plan-making requirements (Para 16 NPPF) and the example of Henley-in-Arden demonstrates how the SWLP's approach can successfully achieve viable and deliverable infrastructure within the context of sustainable development.
There needs to be a commitment to consider the required infrastructure from the start of the process rather than as an afterthought.
No answer given
The issue of viability needs to include specific sustainability criteria and measures to reduce carbon emissions. Explore how sustainable onsite renewable energy might be implemented at the site or community level. For example, in rural areas using community ground source heat pumps/underfloor heating rather than communal LPG tanks.
South Warwickshire is a beautiful area which should be taken great care of! Please ensure that any development is suitable for it's location. Avoid the use of Green Belt land wherever possible and insist that developers use brownfield sites first, including the principle of renovating premises above shops etc in town and village centres.
Funding application and provision for infrastructure schemes must include allowances for high quality project and programme management resources and facilities. So many planned schemes fail to come to fruition on time and within budget. There needs to be more more vigorous prioritisation so that there is a high confidence in the delivery of a smaller number of schemes than a low confidence in the delivery of a larger number of schemes.
Burton Green Parish Council supports the need for the development strategy of South Warwickshire to be both deliverable and viable.
Locations that are not served by bus, train AND cycle routes should not be considered at all for new build.
The green belt must not be built on or the boundary of green belt changed. I do not agree with 500 houses being built in Wilmcote over and above infilling and making changes to the entry to the village. This plan shows the intension to go ahead anyway but getting a viability assessment to justify doing so. This is wrong, this must not go ahead as it is taking agricultural land which could be farmed for food and would completely over run the population of our small village, changing the historic nature of the village and canal. The village has already said NO to building by the railway station/canal and this 500 houses proposal would mean altering the entry over the bridge. Any development requires full in person consultation and agreement with the village community.
Infrastructure provision is currently lagging behind new development. The SWLP needs to prioritise increased capacilty for Hospitals, Schools, Sewerage, and Clean Water (including rivers).
Development as proposed to the North Leamington Areas will greatly increase traffic volumes for which the current Kenilworth Road / A452 is not suitable to sustain. Currently a Leamington to Kenilworth cycle path is being explored/created after much campaigning due to the 'busyness' of this road in an attempt to both encourage more cycling (hence decreasing existing traffic in the area and providing a safe viable, greener option to achieve this compared to the current 'dangerous' route), as well as cutting emissions and improving air quality for users. Addition traffic from the proposed development along the route of the A452 would once again put this goal in jeopardy.
No further comments. But see submitted comments separately regarding Q-I2, as below; NWBC Response – Recommend Option I2a: Set out infrastructure requirements for all scales, types and location of development - Although strategic sites do require specific focus/addressing in infrastructure terms, the wider impact of multiple smaller developments must not be ignored and can and will ultimately have similar scale infrastructure and service impacts to the specific large strategic proposals. NWBC Response – Agree that all identified options need to be used to address infrastructure requirements and delivery including; 1. On-site directly by the infrastructure provider as a requirement of an individual planning permission – e.g. digital communications, energy, water, roads, cycleways, access to public transport 2. On-site incorporated into the design of the development by the developer – e.g. renewable and low carbon energy, green infrastructure, affordable housing, design quality 3. Off-site through the provision of financial developer contributions to pay for the provision of infrastructure to be provided elsewhere – e.g. education, health facilities, biodiversity restoration
The local plan is based on dubious census and population estimates and until these are known with more confidence all estimates of infrastructure needs and viability are uncertain.
Ignoring infrastructure requirements before permitting new development can have a deprecating effect on both existing and new development. For example, failure to consider wastewater run off may lead to flooding of both existing and new properties, failure to consider telephony requirements can lead to contentious and unsightly retro-fitting of mobile phone masts, and failure to consider health infrastructure may lead to inadequate service provision.
In order to achieve this it is suggested that a form of Development Corporation incorporating all tiers of local government and public sector investors, would deliver the best outcome. This should not be left to house builders. Public sector investors will have a longer term and wider perspective. This approach has been widely used elsewhere with great success.
The likely outcome of any development needs to be clearly spelled out, including the supporting infrastructure required and how that will be funded. Cleary there is a limit to the detail which can be provided but coloured circles on a map is not good enough. If , for example, Stratford is to have 8000 more houses, how will they be accommodated? how will the road system develop to cater for extra movement? The future being proposed also has to be described so that people understand exactly what it means.
No mention has been given to the crucial Green Belt considerations and 5 purposes. Please include these priorities in any evaluation.
I was unable to comment on infrastructure in earlier sections. [Redacted text] In particular large play areas. I saw a beautiful bungalow Iwanted, but this was right opposite a HUGE play area. What ridiculous planning. I chose the development I live on now because there is now play area, but my property overlooks the required affordable housing and it is very badly kept with rubbish inthe garden, overwhelmingly bright lighting. [Further redacted text]
We believe that this is very important and does not happen sufficiently currently. Infrastructure should be in place before development. It is difficult to superimpose after development has occurred. In Wellesbourne for instance, we have had a 25% growth with no infrastructure provision. We have poor connectivity with no plans in place to improve it. We are not included in the provision of cycle lanes to improve movement and we have no safe route to school for the young people who live on our new estates and indeed any young people.
ESSENTIAL WE HAVE A REALISTIC GOOD INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY AS WELL AS A DEVELOPMENT POLICY. IN PAST TOO MANY HOUSES BUILT WITHOUT AN ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THEM
Further housing needs to be close to current infrastructure and area of need. The A46 and M40 provide strategic connection without having to cross our by pass towns such as Stratford-Upon-Avon.
Great care is needed when considering any development. Mistakes about size, style volume and infrastructure last forever and spoil the location. Developers will do as little as they can get away with in order to profit from their creations.
I would like to see a more detailed assessment of local biodiversity and river habitats in the proposed growth and new settlement locations, especially in the areas adjacent to the river Avon and a number of key ‘Potential Local Wildlife Sites’.
Get the infrastructure started before the developments are completed
Why are you considering these issues for new developemnts when you don't seem to have laid down minimum standars of infrastructure for exising residents to be able to expect? For example poor or non existent public transport in rural areas. Poor mobile telephone networks. Poor hosuing stock that cannot meet climate demands without major upgrades.
Providing the right infrastructure for developments and existing settlements will have a very high impact on our carbon footprint, and our own wellbeing. Now surely is the last opportunity to address the transport issues. It is right that this draft includes bus routes as essential infrastructure, however if nearly everyone has to own a car to overcome poor reliability, buses of inappropriate size and too few to operate a frequent service, then each journey decision will be based on a cost that ignores the capital cost of a car. With good Public Transport services in place that permit high charges for road use and parking charges some will decide not to own a car and families could then only own one car between them. That would increase the use of Public Transport, ie a tipping point could be reached. Cars will still be needed to augment Public Transport. Stratford, where I live and therefore have experience of, surely a starting point could be retaining the Parkway Station Park and Ride, building a Park and Ride on the spare land when the Bordon Hill roundabout on the Evesham Road is finished and reinstating the P & R at Rosebird. The Triple Laning of the Birmingham Road would allow one lane to be devoted to buses going into town in am and out pm. Those three P & Rs should have smaller buses serving multiple destinations around town and to key nearby employment centres. In the middle of the day those smaller buses could be used for shoppers. The large buses would have to be retained for school runs. Most of the town car parks could be used for housing for elderly and singles and others for the bus termini. The use of "above shop " premises for living accomodation, mentioned elsewhere, would also help to reduce journeys into town. The ruling SDC party needs to bite the bullet. These decisions will not be popular The car after all is not just a form of transport it is for many still a symbol of power wealth and status. Elsewhere Jaguar Land Rover is considered a key employer, part of the legacy of the areas previous car manufacturing. Disastrously it manufactures huge numbers of inappropriate private vehicles, that have become status symbols. They use up large amounts of raw materials, take up a huge amount of road and parking space and pollute at higher levels than even conventional sized cars. They could use their expertise to develop mass transit systems, smaller buses, very small cars etc. So perhaps the government needs to ban the manufacture of vehicle status symbols that are adding to congestion and carbon footprints. Further, us fit elderly could be obliged to give up our cars and the permitted driving age for the young should be increased. These three measures could eventually reduce the use of cars. This part of the UK is well placed to lead the research into alternatives. Perhaps if we could b brave and forward thinking, those groups had available tiny electric pods that could be charged when stored in a town, that would bring mobility back to them. And because the town centre by then should be fully pedestrianised, they would house more people, be re-energised would again have become "centres".
The term 'viability' hasn't been defined clearly enough. Does this include viability in terms of achieving Net Zero or successfully achieving Biodiversity Net Gain? I can't manage that many development types can be viable against these criteria.
Load of rubbish, should be explained more clearly for the layman to understand the implications. No matter what the local community want the Council, will ignore community comments and wishes if it go against the Council.
The delivery of infrastructure – particularly WCC highways and WCC education – is lagging well behind developments in the new local plan. Please can the Districts explore ways, for the new plan, to ensure this does not happen again. Can these powers be delegated from the County? It has been disappointing for residents.