Q-S4.1: Do you think that growth of some of our existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy?
Appendices 2 and 3 of the Settlement Design Analysis (January 2023) includes design analysis for Hampton Magna, Hatton Park and ‘Warwick North’ respectively. Both of these maps do not take into consideration the full extent of the land to the north west of Warwick Parkway Railway Station, with the exception of identifying the location of the canal and the footpath along the canal towpath. This is an omission and should be rectified to allow this area to be properly considered. This site is on the edge of Warwick Town and is included within Sustainability Appraisal Broad Area B.30. The evidence base must be consistent in its consideration of potential development locations.
St Philips considers that the growth of existing settlements should form an important part of the SWLP overall strategy. The NPPF emphasises importance “on the need to support economic growth and productivity” (Para 81) and St Philips is concerned that overlooking existing settlements would constrain economic growth in these locations. The growth of existing settlements would support local services and facilities and would also direct development to sustainable locations in line with the NPPF (Para 11a). Existing settlements often have access to education, healthcare, retail, jobs, and public transport, and should therefore be considered as ideal locations for growth. In this context, St Philips is promoting the Land at Jubilee Fields on the edge of Stockton for residential development. Within the Core Strategy, Stockton is identified as a Category 2 Local Service Village, with the ranked position based upon the provision of services available within the village. In this regard, Stockton offers facilities such as a post office, primary school, restaurants, and a sports ground. A bus service connects the village to settlements such as Rugby and Leamington Spa. It is therefore ideally positioned to support small scale housing growth which would be highly sustainable and would support existing services within the village. In this regard, the NPPF is clear that: “To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services” (Para 79). St Philips therefore welcomes that the IO recognises the importance of considering the potential for growth around the edges of existing settlements, alongside or in combination with options such as new settlements. In this regard, the NPPF recognises that “the supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements” (Para 73). However, the NPPF is equally clear that small-medium sized sites can make a valuable contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area (Para 69). Therefore, regardless of whether a new settlement is pursued, the SWLP will be required to allocate a variety of small-medium sized sites. St Philips considers that sites on the edges of settlements could play a key role in meeting this need.
3.15 IM generally support the initial findings of the settlement analysis; however, it is considered that the analysis purely assesses the existing position. The maps for ‘South Coventry Westwood Heath Road’ at Appendix 3 of the Settlement Analysis confirm the following: • Connectivity: Demonstrates that the Site currently has Grade B connectivity, with Grade A being ‘best connectivity’ and Grade E being ‘poor connectivity’. This is due to the proximity of primary streets and existing footpaths. • Landform Analysis: The ‘South Coventry Westwood Heath Road Landform Analysis’ confirms that there are no flooding, green infrastructure or topography constraints in delivering the Site. • Density Analysis: The Density analysis confirms that the Site is immediately adjacent to an existing outer suburb (20-40 dph) and a business park, demonstrating that the development of the Site would align with the densities of the surrounding areas. 3.16 Through the masterplanning exercise set out in the Vision Document (at Appendix 3 of these representations) IM have demonstrated that there will be opportunities to enhance the connectivity scoring to Grade A once suitable mitigation has been applied. It is considered that ahead of the Preferred Options stage of the SWLP, the settlement analysis should be reviewed to consider the impact on new development – with mitigation applied.
3.26 Taylor Wimpey generally supports the initial findings of the Settlement Design Analysis (January 2023), however the settlement analysis only assesses the existing position, excluding any future enhancements and wider connections, as indicated elsewhere in these representations. It is considered that ahead of the Preferred Options stage of the SWLP, the settlement analysis should be reviewed to consider the impact on new development – with mitigation applied. 3.27 Land North of Leamington is set to provide site-specific mitigation measures as discussed above and within the Vision Document (Appendix 3), the Site provides the most suitable opportunity around Royal Leamington Spa, including accessibility improvements such as bus re-routing to enhance the settlement score even further.
We consider that growth of some of the existing settlements would be the most sustainable way to deliver the local housing need. In line with the NPPF (para 11.) all plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to meet the development needs of their area; align growth and infrastructure; improve the environment; mitigate climate change and adapt to its effects. The Local Plan will provide a spatial development strategy with the aim to provide homes, jobs, green spaces and other infrastructure in the most suitable and sustainable places (page 57). The 20-minute neighbourhood principle defines those locations that can meet that aim, with the main settlements including Royal Leamington Spa being able to provide the services and facilities for people to meet their regular day to day needs within a reasonable walking distance of their homes as well as the option to be able to travel sustainably by providing a good range of sustainable travel choices. We consider that the most sustainable pattern of development at the main settlements such as Royal Leamington Spa can be best achieved through an allocation of a mix of sites. The supply of a variety of land, including small and medium sized sites, for housing will significantly boost the supply of homes as they can be built-out relatively quickly. This supply can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of South Warwickshire. The land at Red House Farm is a suitable, available and achievable site, as established in Appendix 3, and can make an early and positive contribution of circa 270 homes to the supply of land for housing and to meet local housing needs. The Settlement Design Analysis and Sustainability Appraisal Framework support this approach to focusing growth at main settlements. We consider that The Connectivity Analysis has incorrectly assessed Area 7: North Leamington and Cubbington. This Area is currently graded as D, however, this assessment has failed to reflect that any barriers to connectivity can be overcome through the creation of a new access, which is feasible and deliverable. The Site also connects to at least one red route, which is less than 50 metres from the Site and a brown route being within walking distance. There are also existing and potential active links with the current PRoW available connecting to the wider network. There is also the opportunity to create a new route through the Site and link to the Country Park and wider cycle and pedestrian network. The Site should correctly be assessed as a Grade B for connectivity.
Intensification of development. Do we have to assume that this must happen? Overdevelopment of existing settlements is leading to very poor outcomes for people who are currently living there. Existing facilities are under pressure now before any of the additional dwellings are coming on stream. This includes retailing, education, health and transport. This also has a big impact on the environment with the need to consider more open space to be integrated into the built up area. The impact of moving sports facilities out of settlement areas only enhances these problems.
No answer given
Growth of existing settlements should only be considered where it does not require development in the greenbelt. The extension of existing settlements in non-greenbelt locations has been successful in the past and should remain the priority, together with associated investment in infrastructure. Where this approach cannot be achieved, alternative solutions should be sought that do not involve development on greenbelt land.
Growth of existing settlements should only be considered where it does not require development in the greenbelt. Previous growth of existing settlements in non-greenbelt locations should not prevent further development and infrastructure should be invested to support further non-greenbelt development. Where growth of existing settlements cannot be assured without using greenbelt land, alternative solutions should be considered that do not involve development in greenbelt land.
Q-S4.1 St Philips considers that the growth of existing settlements should form an important part of the overall strategy. The NPPF emphasises importance “on the need to support economic growth and productivity” (Para 81) and St Philips is concerned that overlooking existing settlements would constrain economic growth in these locations. The growth of existing settlements would support local services and facilities and would also direct development to sustainable locations in line with the NPPF (Para 11a). Existing settlements often have access to education, healthcare, retail, jobs, and public transport, and should therefore be considered as ideal locations for growth. 2.12 In this context, St Philips is promoting the land at Brickyard Lane on the edge of Studley for residential development. Within the existing Core Strategy, Studley is identified as a Main Rural Centre [MRC]. MRCs provide “a good range of shops, facilities and jobs compared with smaller villages. They also tend to have more frequent public transport services than most of the District’s smaller settlements” (Core Strategy, para 5.1.8). Studley offers facilities such as supermarkets, butchers, a chemist, primary and secondary schools and various community facilities. It is also one of the largest villages within the District and is identified as suitable location for housing and business development and the provision of local services in SOADC’s Core Strategy. Indeed, the ‘Sustainability Appraisal of the South Warwickshire Local Plan November 2022’ [SA] finds that Studley is one of the better performing options against Sustainability Appraisal Objectives such as Health, Economy and Accessibility. 2.13 Allocations that support the growth of Studley would therefore be highly sustainable and would support local services. In this regard, the NPPF is clear that: “To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services” (Para 79). 2.14 St Philips welcomes that the IO recognises the importance of considering the potential for growth around the edges of existing settlements, alongside or in combination with options such as new settlements. Whilst the NPPF recognises that “the supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements” (Para 73), it is equally clear that small-medium sized sites can make a valuable contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area (Para 69). Therefore, regardless of whether a new settlement is pursued, the SWLP will need to allocate a variety of small-medium sized sites. St Philips considers that the proportionate growth of existing settlements will play a key role in fulfilling this requirement.
Growth of existing settlements should only be considered where it does not require development in the greenbelt. Previous growth of existing settlements in non-greenbelt locations should not prevent further development and infrastructure should be invested to support further non-greenbelt development. Where growth of existing settlements cannot be assured without using greenbelt land, alternative solutions should be considered that do not involve development in greenbelt land.
Growth of existing settlements should only be considered where it does not require development in the greenbelt. Previous growth of existing settlements in non-greenbelt locations should not prevent further development and infrastructure should be invested to support further non-greenbelt development. Where growth of existing settlements cannot be assured without using greenbelt land, alternative solutions should be considered that do not involve development in greenbelt land.
QS4.1 Growth of existing settlements – Growth of existing settlements should only be considered where it does not require development in the greenbelt. Previous growth of existing settlements in non-greenbelt locations should not prevent further development and infrastructure should be invested to support further non-greenbelt development. Where growth of existing settlements cannot be assured without using greenbelt land, alternative solutions should be considered that do not involve development in greenbelt land.
Q. 52 No to exploring growth opportunities in the Green Belt, except on brownfield sites. South Warwickshire has enough non green belt land that it can use, and Coventry ‘s increasing population (if it exists) should be accommodated on Coventry’s own green belt sites, not on Warwick District land. The green belt between Coventry and Kenilworth, and Leamington/Warwick and Kenilworth, as defined by the existing Warwick District Local Plan, should remain intact at all costs. Allowing inroads into it would result in urban sprawl and undermine the whole basis of green belt policy.
QS4.1 - Growth of Existing Settlements: These should only be a consideration when greenbelt is not affected.
QS4.1 Growth of existing settlements – Growth of existing settlements should only be considered where it does not require development in the greenbelt. Previous growth of existing settlements in non-greenbelt locations should not prevent further development and infrastructure should be invested to support further non-greenbelt development. Where growth of existing settlements cannot be assured without using greenbelt land, alternative solutions should be considered that do not involve development in greenbelt land.
QS4.1 Growth of existing settlements – Growth of existing settlements should only be considered where it does not require development in the greenbelt. Previous growth of existing settlements in non-greenbelt locations should not prevent further development and infrastructure should be invested to support further non-greenbelt development. Where growth of existing settlements cannot be assured without using greenbelt land, alternative solutions should be considered that do not involve development in greenbelt land.
2.34. The Respondent would largely agree with the conclusions drawn in the Settlement Analysis. The Respondent’s site is indicated as having good connectivity with the village of Hampton Magna, which the Respondent would support. Read alongside the Heritage Assessment and considering that land to the west of the village poses no risk of coalescence with the urban area of Warwick the Respondent’s site at Old Budbrooke Road is considered the best option for growth at the village.
Growth of existing settlements should only be considered where it does not require development in the greenbelt. Previous growth of existing settlements in non-greenbelt locations should not prevent further development. Infrastructure should be invested to support further non-greenbelt development. Where growth of existing settlements cannot be assured without using greenbelt land, alternative solutions should be considered that do not involve development in greenbelt land.
I do not think the area around Hatton Station is suitable for development. The country lanes and the junction near the entrance to the station are not safe to accommodate an increased volume in traffic This would also create extra air and noise pollution .There is currently some green belt between Hatton station and the M4O and if this was lost it would not only effect pollution but also damage nature and mean loss of home to the abundance of wildlife who live there. This would also have a negative impact on peoples health and well-being as many currently use the area for healthy walks in the fresh air etc.
New Settlement Reference E1 (Long Marston Airfield / Meon Vale): We are pleased to see that the sustainability appraisal for this potential new settlement has had regard to the potential impacts on the Cotswolds National Landscape. We support the proposal to mitigate any potential minor adverse effects through the use of landscape-led site design principles. Consideration should be given to the potential cumulative effects of this new settlement combined with other development in this locality.
Settlement Analysis for Kingswood: I believe that the work undertaken so far is a reasonable start but that it is incomplete and potentially misleading. There are many more factors to be considered than the ones that are there at present.
Growth of existing settlements should only be considered where it does not require development in the greenbelt. The extension of existing settlements in non-greenbelt locations has been successful in the past and should remain the priority, together with associated investment in infrastructure. Where this approach cannot be achieved, alternative solutions should be sought that do not involve development on greenbelt land.
Growth of existing settlements should only be considered where it does not require development in the greenbelt. Previous growth of existing settlements in non-greenbelt locations should not prevent further development and infrastructure should be invested to support further non-greenbelt development. Where growth of existing settlements cannot be assured without using greenbelt land, alternative solutions should be considered that do not involve development in greenbelt land.
Growth of existing settlements should only be considered where it does not require development in the Green Belt. Changes to the National Planning Policy Framework mean that the estimated figure for Local Housing Need is, to quote the letter from Michael Gove MP “no more than” a starting point and “importantly, that areas will not be expected to meet this need where they are subject to genuine constraints”. The Green Belt around North Leamington is recognised as a genuine constraint to development.
Henley in Arden apparently has a projected 500-2000 homes in the SWLP. This growth is very much out of proportion with the existing size of the local population. Henley is certainly unsuitable for growth over 500 houses due to flood risk, poor infrastructure (sewage and drainage at capacity, schools and GP services full, congested road, scanty train and bus services) additionally Henley has already far exceeded the projected settlement growth planned up to 2031 in the Henley Neighbourhood Plan. More information needs to be collated to inform the SWLP how much additional housing Henley could reasonably absorb, with or without improvements in infrastructure.
We note that the Settlement Design Analysis, which is published in support of the Issues and Options consultation, seeks to identify the best connected locations for potential growth, and to identify locations with good accessibility to existing services and facilities. Kenilworth is identified as a Main Town in that report. Our client’s land (which forms part of Parcel 18), adjacent to Kenilworth, is assessed as having a connectivity level C, the third best connectivity achievable. The Landform Analysis in the same document does not identify the site as Green Infrastructure and it is not identified as being of significant topography and it is not within Flood zone 2 and 3. The document also notes that the site has access to four types of facilities within 800m; retail, jobs and economy, places to meet and open space, leisure and recreation and education. In addition, Kenilworth Town Centre is only a 1km walk from the site, and there are suitable pavements with lighting between the site and the town centre, all of which could be upgraded to a cycle and pedestrian route, providing a quick and convenient link to the shops and services in the town centre, and the trains station with its services to Leamington Spa, Nuneaton and Milton Keynes. The Service X16 bus stops at Beauchamp Road, a very short distance from the site The site covers an area of 2.58ha and is currently in use for agriculture and equestrian purposes. The site would be accessed from Rounds Hill, making use of the existing single track drive, although at a future date residents on this road would be approached to seek purchase of a property to provide a more suitable, wider access (a property either side of the existing access would be considered most appropriate). Should this site come forward together with site reference 140, then access from Rouncil Lane to the south-east may also be possible.
Henley in Arden apparently has a projected 500-2000 homes in the SWLP. This growth is very much out of proportion with the existing size of the local population. Henley is certainly unsuitable for growth over 500 houses due to flood risk, poor infrastructure (sewage and drainage at capacity, schools and GP services full, congested road, scanty train and bus services) additionally Henley has already far exceeded the projected settlement growth planned up to 2031 in the Henley Neighbourhood Plan. More information needs to be collated to inform the SWLP how much additional housing Henley could reasonably absorb, with or without improvements in infrastructure