Q-S4.1: Do you think that growth of some of our existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy?
In the Settlement Design Analysis document, which has been submitted as part of the Local Plans technical evidence in support of the Issues and Options consultation, Blackdown (which is included under the Cubbington and North Leamington area) is considered amongst the most sustainable settlements in existing policy and as such has been assessed with regard to its connectivity, accessibility and density. Our client’s land is located within area 9 and is graded a connectivity grade of C (the third highest grade possible). Our client’s site is located off of the primary road of Sandy Lane, on which there is also a footpath, connecting our client’s land North Leamington by foot and road. Therefore an allocation on our client’s land would be well connected to both the existing settlement and wider area. In area 9 there is access to North Leamington Secondary School along with open space, leisure and recreation within 800m making the area accessible. We would like to note that an allocation on our client’s land (along with land in the adjoining ownership) would bring more facilities making the site more accessible. Overall, the settlement analysis for Cubbington and North Leamington demonstrates that it is a sustainable location for development, particularly where it is located on ‘primary streets’ and where the area is classified as a high connectivity grade and as such an allocation on our client’s site would provide a sustainable location for new development.
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.
New Settlements: I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non- greenbelt site.
Q-S4.1: Do you think that growth of some of our existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy? Warwick focuses development around its four main urban areas, whilst Stratford’s identified Local Service Villages accommodate a proportion of development as well as its main towns. In order to develop the most sustainable pattern of development, growth at existing settlements should be in the most sustainable locations. In the case of L&Q Estates land interests this should include the consideration of the land as an additional development that would sit alongside the existing Long Marston Airfield Garden Village to the north, and Meon Vale to the south and which would create a new settlement. The former Long Marston Airfield site is a garden village and will bring forward approximately 3,500 homes plus employment opportunities, a village centre, two primary schools and a secondary school. Meon Vale has planning permission for approximately 1,000 houses, retained employment space, a leisure hub and a primary school. The original village of Long Marston is to the west, separated by fields. The land identified at Appendix A the subject of these representations could deliver a distinguishable, high quality and landscape led development providing 1,000 – 1,500 new homes, a country park, a primary school and a local centre/community uses. It is ideally placed to link to both the Long Marston Airfield Garden Village (LMAGV) to the north and Meon Vale to the south, and to assist in the provision of significant infrastructure including the South Western Relief Road and the reopening of Honeybourne railway station, should that come forward (see Appendix B, Vision Document page 20). The Airfield and Meon Vale are both referred to as 'villages' although they are not currently formally part of the Spatial Strategy in the adopted Development Plan. The land off Station Road provides the opportunity to define a development boundary around the L&Q Estates land, Meon Vale and the LMAGV, creating a sustainable settlement in this location. As a location, the L&Q Estates land interests should be considered further, as a specific reasonable alternative within the SA and relevant evidence base documentation to consider its suitability for development and with a view to identifying the area within which it sits as a new settlement. Q-S4.2: The Site does not fall within or adjacent to any of the settlements that have been considered in the Settlement Design Analysis published with the Issues and Options consultation. However, based on the Council's consideration of Settlement Analysis the site would score highly. It can be accessible by all forms of transport and provide vehicular access off Campden Road and Station Road as well as being integrated into a network of pedestrian and cycling routes within and beyond the site, connecting to the existing Public Rights of Way and National Cycle Routes including the Stratford Greenway. It is not in a Special Landscape Area and as shown in the Vision Document, can be designed to take account of the areas within the Site at risk of flooding, providing development outside of these areas. Further, it can be linked to the LMAGV and Meon Vale developments to the north and south respectively and when taking into account the facilities proposed on the Site it can be within 800m of the facilities the Council have considered in the Settlement Analysis including retail, jobs, places to meet, open space and education. This is set out on Page 34 of the Vision Document.
In the Settlement Design Analysis document, which has been submitted as part of the Local Plans technical evidence in support of the Issues and Options consultation, Radford Semele is considered amongst the most sustainable settlements in existing policy and as such has been assessed with regard to its connectivity, accessibility and density. In the connectivity analysis, our client’s site lies along a primary street for Radford Semele connecting the site to Leamington Spa heading north up the Southam Road and to the Fosse Way heading south. There are also two footpaths which connects the village straight into the site thus preventing the need to access the site on foot via a road network. The area in which our client’s site is located is classified as connectivity grade B (the second best connectivity level achievable) and thus any allocation on our client’s land would be well connected to the existing settlement along with the wider area. Our client’s land forms part of Area 3 of Radford Semele which demonstrated that there are four different categories of local facilities within 800m; retail, jobs and economy; places to meet; open space, leisure, recreation and wellbeing; and education. This demonstrates that our Client’s site is accessible and also capable of providing a ‘20-minute neighbourhood’. Overall, the settlement analysis for Radford Semele demonstrates it is a sustainable location for development, particularly where it is located on ‘primary streets’ and where the area is classified as a high connectivity grade and as such an allocation on our client’s site would provide a sustainable location for new development.
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.
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.
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 - 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: Do you think that growth of some of our existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy? Growth of South Warwickshire’s existing settlements should form part of the overall development strategy to deliver sustainable development which meets the needs of the local community. Paragraph 79 of the NPPF (2021) is clear that planning policies should ‘identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive’, thus development sites should be allocated across the broad spectrum of South Warwickshire’s towns and villages. It is recommended that a settlement hierarchy is utilised to ensure development is directed towards the most sustainable towns and villages and the level of growth proposed is commensurate of the settlement’s sustainability. Settlement hierarchies are a well-established planning tool which assist Local Authorities in meeting the overarching economic, social and environmental sustainability objectives set out in paragraph 8 of the NPPF (2021) and will assist in meeting the Council’s 13 sustainability objectives identified in the Sustainability Appraisal of the South Warwickshire Local Plan Regulation 18: Issues and Options Stage (November 2022).A development strategy which includes expansion to existing settlements which is underpinned by awell-evidenced settlement hierarchy and housing and employment needs assessment will meet the test of soundness set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF (2021). It would be positively prepared to meet South Warwickshire’s objectively assessed needs, justified by utilising an appropriate strategy based on proportionate evidence and consistent with the overarching aims of national planning policies. Q-S4.2: Bidford-on-Avon is a highly sustainable settlement which offers a wide range of facilities and services to meet the needs of local residents, including access to public transport to provide sustainable connections to nearby towns and villages. Bidford has been identified in the Sustainability Appraisal of the South Warwickshire Local Plan Regulation 18: Issues and Options Stage (November 2022) as a small settlement location which is within easy foot or riding distance to key services to assist in contributing to the 20-minute neighbourhood principles. A 20-minute neighbourhood is defined as ‘a compact and connected place, with a range of services that meet most people’s daily needs. A compact neighbourhood is one in which land is used efficiently so that buildings are distributed appropriately for their uses’ in the 20-minute Neighbourhood Guide (2021) prepared by the Town and Country Planning Association. The key principle relates to a 10-minute walk each way between homes and services. The principles of the 20-minute neighbourhood have underpinned the South Warwickshire Settlement Analysis (2023) and it is our understanding that subject to further consultation and evidence base preparation, the Councils are intending to incorporate the principles within the South Warwickshire Local Plan. As part of the individual identification of settlements, detailed in section 3.5 of the Sustainability Appraisal of the South Warwickshire Local Plan Regulation 18: Issues and Options Stage (November 2022), Bidford has been identified as a smaller location which may be able to deliver 50-500 new homes. We agree with this view in principle given that Bidford is a highly sustainable settlement. However, 500 dwellings should not be considered a maximum upper limit if it can be demonstrated that additional development can be delivered which accords with the three overarching sustainable objectives set out in paragraph 8 of the NPPF (2021). This is particularly prudent given the current housing crisis and the national requirement to significantly boost the supply of homes. We are also not aware of any justification that has resulted in the upper limit and therefore to meet the test of soundness detailed in paragraph 35 of the NPPF (2021), the identified range should be a guide figure and the proposed allocations in each settlement should derive from the evidence base prepared in support of the local plan preparation. Our client is promoting Land North of Stratford Road, Bidford (ref: 562), which can deliver circa 500 homes. As set out in our supporting Vision Document (March 2023), we consider that a high-quality scheme can be delivered which positively contributes to the Council’s 13 sustainability objectives. The proposed level of housing facilitates the provision of other land uses on site, including employment development, a care home and a local centre. The non-residential elements of the scheme would be of benefit to the entire local community, elevating the sustainability of Bidford and further supporting the Councils aspiration of achieving 20-minute neighbourhoods. The submission of the mixed-used site should be given due consideration in assessing the sustainability of Bidford and its potential for growth. Overall, we agree with the connectivity analysis for Bidford contained in the Settlement Design Analysis (Appendix 2) which assesses the settlements edges to be Grade A (best connectivity) through to Grade E (poorest connectivity). Land North of Stratford Road is assessed to be Grade B (parcel 11(B)) and Grade C (parcel 12 (c)). The Grade B parcel being located on the eastern side of Grafton Lane and Grade C to the west. The analysis notes that a connection to the industrial estate would increase the connectivity performance of the western parcel of land. The analysis does not highlight any other growth areas which score higher for connectivity thus our client’s site presents an excellent opportunity for settlement expansion in an area which will support the 20-minute neighbourhood principles. The mix of land uses proposed at Land North of Stratford Road will further increase the connectivity of the site to key facilities and services. The local centre and care home is proposed to be located to the west along Stratford Road to reduce walking and cycling distance for the community. The proposed employment development to the north west of the site will be accessed via a new vehicular and pedestrian access from Grafton Lane which will increase parcel 12(c)’s connectivity performance in line with the Councils recommendation. A vehicular and pedestrian access is also proposed between the employment land and Wellington Road to further improve connectivity to the north of the settlement. We agree with the landform analysis prepared by the Council. Land North of Stratford Road is not impacted by the flood zone, existing green infrastructure or topography. Furthermore, the site is not constrained by any known insurmountable technical constraints. The density analysis for Bidford provides a useful evidence base to inform the preparation of site layouts. The evidence has been incorporated within the vision for our client’s site. Firstly, the employment land has been located to the north west which will result in it being read as an extension to the existing industrial area. Whilst we are not at a detailed design stage, we consider a development could come forward which responds to the existing density of Bidford and provides a lower density suburban edge along its eastern boundary. We also agree with the Heritage and Settlement Sensitivity Assessment for Warwick and Stratford-onAvon Local Plan (SWLP) (September 2022) which concludes that the eastern edge of the settlement is an appropriate location for growth from a heritage perspective. To ensure the South Warwickshire Local Plan meets the test of soundness detailed in paragraph 35 of the NPPF (2021), it is paramount that the Councils use the evidence base, including the settlement analysis, to develop a plan which is justified.
Question S4.1: Existing settlements should not be subject to growth (development) if this means incursions into Green belt land. There are existing settlements that have been subjected to growth in the past. It would seem more sustainable, environmentally friendly and efficient to allow further growth in such areas, at the same time including improvements to infrastructure and facilities.
No answer given
Q-S4.1: Two of these are Earlswood and Wood End. The most important factor here is the Green Belt which the Consultation Paper has deferred consideration of. Both settlements are in a critical part of the GB being so close to boundary of the Birmingham /Solihull conurbation – and Solihull is steadily eating into it! Q-S4.2: Both settlements are in Tanworth Parish which the Annual Monitoring Report lists as one of the most deprived areas in the District as regards services. Your appraisal does not comment on whether development of modest scale would make any difference to the level of service. It is much more likely to result in soulless estates with total reliance on the car. Leaving the GB issue on one side the Earlswood sustainability appraisal is inaccurate in a number of respects: • There is no regular bus service at all • Nearest station is over a mile away, there is no safe pedestrian route to it and no spare parking capacity (or the means for providing extra parking) at it • Mitigation by improved active and transport links is extremely remote and it is disingenuous to suggest that this is even possible • Risk of coalescence in the Green Belt is high. As regards Wood End: • There is no regular bus service at all • The primary school is on average a mile away and there is no safe pedestrian route to it In both cases you claim access to Green Spaces, but do not identify the Green Space. We question this is true.
Yes, we agree that some of the existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy. The SA has explored a number of alternative options for growth at existing settlements. The importance of considering the potential for growth around the edges of existing settlements is acknowledged. The growth of all existing settlements (proportionate to their size) could also assist the council to secure benefits associated with the 20-minute neighbourhood principle – the settlement analysis undertaken as part of the evidence base identifies settlements which are considered to be suitable for growth – based on connectivity, accessibility and density analysis. Taylor Wimpey (Midlands) Ltd and Bloor Homes have an interest in a parcel of land at The Asps, which is located on the southern edge of Warwick and to the west of Royal Leamington Spa. It has been submitted to the Call for Sites and known as Agricultural Land. The Asps site is located to the south-east of Warwick and as such the following comments relate to the analysis of that area contained within the Settlement Analysis undertaken by the Council to inform the Local Plan. The connectivity analysis considers The Asp Farm within Area 8. There is no real commentary other than to highlight that the site is served by one brown route (the A46). It has been graded as Grade D – which is the equivalent of an amber score. We do not necessarily agree with the above score but do accept that the site does not physically link with the southern edge of Warwick. We would like to point out however, that the development of this whole site for residential development for up to 900 dwellings, a primary school, a local centre and a Park and Ride facility for up to 500 spaces, with access from Europa Way and Banbury Road, areas of public open space, landscaping enhancements and archaeological mitigation was allowed at appeal in 2014, following a refusal by the council. The appeal was called in by the Secretary of State for determination. He placed moderate weight on the accessibility drawbacks of the site but considered that the Park and Ride facility would be a substantial benefit that has the potential to reduce vehicular traffic in the town centre and surrounding highway network as well as alleviating town centre parking congestion. Essentially then, the site at the Asps once developed in accordance with the outline consent will become a separate neighbourhood, with access to a primary school, local centre and served by a park and ride facility with regular bus services running into Leamington Spa and Warwick. The connectivity for residents throughout the development to services/facilities required on a daily basis will be good, accessible by bus, cycle or walking. The phase 1 Reserved Matters consent resulted in the diversion of a public right of way which leads through the site onto the Banbury Road. Discussions are ongoing with phase 2 proposals to ensure pedestrian connectivity through the site is achieved through the site to services/facilities on Banbury Road (particularly Warwick school). The Park and Ride reserved matters application is currently being considered by the LPA and discussions have been on-going with the Council to ensure that it meets their expectations and complies with the specification set out within the S106 legal agreement. The site falls within the red line boundary of the outline approval and is not indicated on the approved phasing plan for any purpose. The advanced planting stage was approved by a separate Reserved Matters application and has been implemented. The infrastructure phase has also received consent and also implemented. The Reserved Matters schemes for phase 1 have been approved (450 dwellings in total); and the layout fixed for phase 2 and currently under consideration (also for 450 units), which cumulatively achieves the 900 dwellings approved by the outline – the development of the agricultural land cannot be carried out without a fresh consent. The site could provide up to 70 units and development of them would make efficient use of the land and form a logical extension to the Asps. Further site-specific details can be considered at relevant points in the future as the development of the plan progresses. From a sequential point of view, the site is not contained within the Green Belt or within a Landscape Sensitivity area and so as such, should be given priority for development over other sites located within sensitive locations such as those within the Green Belt.
Issue S4: Growth of existing settlements Q-S4.2: Yes, we agree that some of the existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy. The SA has explored a number of alternative options for growth at existing settlements. The importance of considering the potential for growth around the edges of existing settlements is acknowledged. The growth of all existing settlements (proportionate to their size) could also assist the council to secure benefits associated with the 20-minute neighbourhood principle – the settlement analysis undertaken as part of the evidence base identifies settlements which are considered to be suitable for growth – based on connectivity, accessibility and density analysis. Taylor Wimpey (Midlands) Ltd and Bloor Homes have an interest in a parcel of land at The Asps (known as White Land), which is located on the southern edge of Warwick and to the west of Royal Leamington Spa. It has been submitted to the Call for Sites. The Asps site is located to the south-east of Warwick and as such the following comments relate to the analysis of that area contained within the Settlement Analysis undertaken by the Council to inform the Local Plan. The connectivity analysis considers The Asp Farm within Area 8. There is no real commentary other than to highlight that the site is served by one brown route (the A46). It has been graded as Grade D – which is the equivalent of an amber score. We do not necessarily agree with the above score but do accept that the site does not physically link with the southern edge of Warwick. We would like to point out however, that the development of this whole site for residential development for up to 900 dwellings, a primary school, a local centre and a Park and Ride facility for up to 500 spaces, with access from Europa Way and Banbury Road, areas of public open space, landscaping enhancements and archaeological mitigation was allowed at appeal in 2014, following a refusal by the council. The appeal was called in by the Secretary of State for determination. He placed moderate weight on the accessibility drawbacks of the site but considered that the Park and Ride facility would be a substantial benefit that has the potential to reduce vehicular traffic in the town centre and surrounding highway network as well as alleviating town centre parking congestion. Essentially then, the site at the Asps once developed in accordance with the outline consent will become a separate neighbourhood, with access to a primary school, local centre and served by a park and ride facility with regular bus services running into Leamington Spa and Warwick. The connectivity for residents throughout the development to services/facilities required on a daily basis will be good, accessible by bus, cycle or walking. The phase 1 Reserved Matters consent resulted in the diversion of a public right of way which leads through the site onto the Banbury Road. Discussions are ongoing with phase 2 proposals to ensure pedestrian connectivity through the site is achieved through the site to services/facilities on Banbury Road (particularly Warwick school). The Park and Ride reserved matters application is currently being considered by the LPA and discussions have been on-going with the Council to ensure that it meets their expectations and complies with the specification set out within the S106 legal agreement. The site has been submitted to the Call for Sites exercise but briefly, it located within the red line area of the approved outline consent within an area designated on the phasing plan for residential use. The Reserved Matters schemes for phase 1 have been approved (450 dwellings in total); and the layout fixed for phase 2 and currently under consideration (also for 450 units), which cumulatively achieves the 900 dwellings approved by the outline – the development of the surplus white land cannot be carried out without a fresh consent. The site could provide up to 70 units and development of it would make efficient use of the land and form a logical extension to the Asps. Further site-specific details can be considered at relevant points in the future as the development of the plan progresses. From a sequential point of view, the site is not contained within the Green Belt or within a Landscape Sensitivity area and so as such, should be given priority for development over other sites located within sensitive locations such as those within the Green Belt.
In relation to the settlement analysis, and having reviewed the sustainability appraisal, we wish to make comments in relation to small settlement C.17 South Coventry. This area contains our client’s existing committed development to the south of Westwood Heath Road and some of the proposed expansion area for this development (as set out in the Vision Document accompanying the representations). Firstly, Crest Nicholson supports the inclusion of this area as a potential option for the consideration of development in the future, given its location on the southern boundary of Coventry and the development approved and under construction on the Crest Nicholson site to the south of Westwood Heath Road for 425 dwellings (W/22/0055) at the western end of the C17 area. Crest Nicholson however queries why, when considering reasonable alternatives, the ‘South Coventry’ area is being classified as a ‘small settlement location’ and not a ‘broad location at the main settlements’ due to its location on the edge of Coventry. It is maintained that, whilst Coventry is outside of the Local Plan area, the South Coventry location is more akin to the ‘broad locations’ identified around settlements such as Leamington Spa, Warwick and Kenilworth, particularly given the commitment in the Local Plan Vision to meet, where agreed and appropriate, unmet need from neighbouring authorities. In relation to the boundary shown for the Coventry South location, it is noted that this omits land that has previously been removed from the Green Belt and forms part of the adopted Warwick Local Plan housing allocation H42. To maximise the potential capacity in this sustainable location adjacent to an existing committed development, and assist with reducing the amount of land that might need to be removed from the Green Belt through this new Local Plan, it is requested that the entirety of the H42 non Green Belt land is included as part of the Coventry South location. The additional land to be included is highlighted in the plan below. A Vision document is being submitted alongside these Issues and Options representations, which shows the potential of this blue land for accommodating additional residential development in a way which can be assimilated into the landscape context whilst not resulting in significant harm to the nearby Scheduled Monument. There is also currently considered to be capacity within the local highway network to accommodate the expansion of this existing committed site in the manner suggested. Appendix 3 of the Settlement Design Analysis (January 2023) includes design analysis for the ‘South of Coventry’ location. The Westwood Heath Road Connectivity Analysis identifies the residential area of Crest Nicholson’s committed residential development to the south of Westwood Heath Road. The connectivity of land immediately to the south and west of this (2(C) and 1(D)) should be more positively scored than it is on the basis that connections can be delivered into the road, walking and cycling network being brought forward as part of the existing committed residential development area through an amendment to the layout to this development. The opportunities for this are shown within a Vision Document which is being submitted alongside these representations.The Westwood Heath Road Density Analysis should be updated to reflect the density of residential development that is being delivered at the committed Crest Nicholson residential development to the south of Westwood Heath Road in order to ensure that the context is being most appropriately represented.
3.27 Alongside the IO document, a ‘Settlement Analysis’ evidence base report (referred to here as ‘the report’) has been prepared to help identify opportunities and constraints to growth in and around the edges of a number of settlements and locations across South Warwickshire. The analysis in the report focuses on three factors; Connectivity, Accessibility, and Density. A primary purpose of the report, as stated at paragraph 2.1 of the report, is to aid understanding of the potential to achieve the ’20-minute neighbourhood’ concept in those settlements identified, and is designed to support the development of the spatial strategy for South Warwickshire. Page 44 of the IO document also points to ‘other factors’ outside the scope of this analysis relating to the potential for growth. However, the report does not identify those here or explain how these will be taken into account in determining where growth will be directed. RPS seeks further clarification on this as the SWLP moves forward. 3.28 The settlements included in the analysis are listed in Table 2 of the IO document. These, the IO document claims, have been selected based on their status in the existing Local Plans and those that fall within certain growth options. Section 3 of the report provides some commentary on the reasoning behind the selection process. 3.29 RPS would highlight the methodology used to select the sites within the Settlement Analysis has not been provided comprehensively. Where methodology has been provided, it has been unclear as to how to follow. In particular, RPS note in particular that the Lower Quinton along with other sustainable locations such as Local Service Villages have been omitted from the study. Whilst a number of these settlements conform to spatial options identified in the IO Plan, an assessment of character and capacity has not been undertaken, a notable flaw of the evidence base. 3.30 The current omission indicates that the Councils are not concerned with the growth of settlements beyond those tier 1 and tier 2 settlements. Whilst these higher order settlements are the most service rich, there remains a need to continue to allow all sustainable locations in the plan area to grow, and as currently drafted, the evidence base provides little certainty that these areas have been properly considered. 3.31 RPS expects that the Settlement Analysis should be updated through the development of the South Warwickshire Plan, to include a fuller list of settlements that can accommodate growth as part of the plan, making allocations where consistent with the spatial option progressed. 3.32 Consequently, the SWLP should extend its search to include other settlements which are currently acknowledged as being sustainable locations, notably Lower Quinton, that can create 20-minute neighbourhoods. On this basis, Lower Quinton should be incorporated into a revised version of the Settlement Analysis document.
Q-S4.1 Settlements such as Long Marston should still form part of the growth strategy to allow them to development and continue to support the existing and future occupiers as demand for services and facilities changes over time.
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.
Yes, the well placed growth of existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy of the plan as it allows us to utilise and enhance existing facilities and infrastructure to create more sustainable places for people to live. New development in existing settlements allows us to preserve the vitality in such communities and bring in new habitants to make them thrive. It is also important to recognise the benefits associated with new development such as better public transport and new open space which contributes to the health and wellbeing of these communities. New development would also include affordable housing which encourages young people to stay in the village. Ufton is a village which experiences high traffic with people travelling between Southam and Leamington Spa and as such new development could bring improved infrastructure to the village which would be a huge benefit to the village. An allocation on our client’s land would allow the growth of the existing settlement of Ufton in a way which respects the built form of the village by being adjacent to and following the natural built line and filling the gap between existing developments all whilst providing benefits to 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 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-S4.2: Please add any comments you wish to make about the settlement analysis, indicating clearly which element of the assessment and which settlement(s) you are commenting on. 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 6), adjacent to Kenilworth, is assessed as having a connectivity level B, the second best connectivity achievable. The Landform Analysis in the same document identifies the site as Green Infrastructure. We contend that the site should not be identified as Green Infrastructure. The European Commission definition of Green Infrastructure is: ‘A strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas with other environmental features, designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services, while also enhancing biodiversity.” The site currently provides mown and managed playing fields, which support minimal biodiversity, do not provide natural habitats, and are used for recreational purposes by multiple people. As such, we request that the Green Infrastructure designation is removed from the site. The document also notes that the site has access to three types of facilities within 800m; retail, jobs and economy, places to meet and open space, leisure and recreation. In addition, Kenilworth High Street only lies 1,000m from the site, and there is a wide pavement along Coventry Road to the High Street 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 train station with its services to Leamington Spa, Nuneaton and Milton Keynes. The Service 24 bus passes the site , linking the site to Kenilworth, the University of Warwick and Coventry. The site covers an area of 3.16ha. Some of the land is surplus to requirements, and therefore it is proposed that reconfigured sports facilities required by Crackley Hall School are retained at the site to make more efficient use of the site, and that the remainder of the site is released for residential development and development of a new childrens’ nursery, for use by both existing and new residents. The site has excellent potential access to Coventry Road. Sworders has engaged with the adjacent landowner, Border Holdings; we are aware of the Border Holdings’ submission of a masterplan and promotion document to the Councils, and this submission is made in that context, and would seek to complement that development.
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: Do you think that growth of some of our existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy? and Q-S4.2: Please add any comments you wish to make about the settlement analysis, indicating clearly which element of the assessment and which settlement(s) you are commenting on (Growth of existing settlements) Bellway agrees that existing settlements should be used as part of the overall strategy. These settlements have existing infrastructure which make them more sustainable, accessible and likely to deliver dwellings more quickly in the short-medium term. However, Bellway consider that the SWLP should include a revised settlement hierarchy which combines both LPAs’ existing hierarchies and reassess them to ensure that all settlements included in each tier are equally sustainable and less constrained. Some of the settlements considered to be the most sustainable in Warwick District offer less services and facilities then settlements in ‘lower’ tiers’ in Stratford District, such as Long Itchington. Additionally, Long Itchington is one of the few sustainable rural settlements which is not constrained by Green Belt, AONB or a Special Landscape Area, therefore, it should be identified as one of the settlements to target more housing growth to. Bellway supports the inclusion of Long Itchington within the Settlement Analysis document (January 2023). Appendix 3 includes the detailed assessment of Long Itchington. Bellway is supportive of their sites (SHLAA reference Long.9 and Long.18 being identified as some of the best connected sites adjacent to Long Itchington and the shops, services and facilities the settlement provides. Should the sites be allocated then their accessibility can be further improved through new pedestrian and cycle connections between the site and wider settlement. Bellway’s land to the south of the canal (Long. 21) scored slightly lower than Long.9 and Long.8 for its accessibility. Should the site be allocated, then Bellway consider that pedestrian and cycle links could be enhanced between the site and Long Itchington. The summary of page 6 of Appendix 3 states that areas ‘14’ and ‘15’ to the east of Long Itchington are within 800m of healthcare. It is unclear where this healthcare provision is and consider this should be reviewed.
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.
2.5 Response: The Strategy should provide a wide range of employment opportunities in accessible locations. Moreover, the Strategy needs to respond to the needs of businesses. 2.6 The National Planning Policy Framework 2021 (paragraph 8) states that the economic objective for achieving sustainable development requires the planning system to ensure that ‘sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity.’ 2.7 The Local Plan should indeed support the growth of new industries/sectors as part of a portfolio approach to supporting economic growth within the Districts. In so far as there is some level of balance between employment land requirements and housing provision, the public interest is better served by an over-provision of employment land than an under-provision because local development plans are insufficiently agile to release further land in order to accommodate employment needs. As such, the Local Plan should include a policy that allows for additional land to be released for employment purposes in circumstances where it can be demonstrated that existing employment sites are either not suitable or not available to meet employment requirements. 2.8 Sustainable locations should be considered for employment, for example adjacent to existing employment locations and adjacent to main towns including Stratford-upon-Avon Council. In so far as the majority of employment opportunities are located within and adjoining the main towns of both Districts, these settlements should be the focus for new employment locations that are needed.
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-S5.2 - New Settlements: I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non-greenbelt site.