Q-S4.1: Do you think that growth of some of our existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy?
Long Marston Airfield New Settlement has been omitted from the Settlement Analysis. This is a significant omission. It is identified as a potential location for a New Settlement by Figure 12, a potential Rail Corridor development option by Figure 16, a Sustainable Travel development option by Figure 17, an Economic Development opportunity by Figure 18, a Sustainable Travel and Economy Option by Figure 19 and a Dispersed Development option by Figure 20. Long Marston Airfield can fulfil a role under all of the SWLPs Growth Options. We are concerned that the failure for it to be included with the Settlement Analysis could hinder its assessment as a potential development location. This should not be the case.
3.17 The Settlement Analysis has been undertaken on the basis of a 20-minute neighbourhood principle, using the existing settlements identified as part of the May 2021 consultation. In addition, the Analysis further states that a small number of additional settlements have been further identified and assessed. As a result, it is unclear as to why a review of all settlements has not occurred, or how the settlements that have been analysed were identified as appropriate to add to the analysis. No evidence or justification to demonstrate their position as a settlement is presented. 3.18 Furthermore, the analysis states that this was not run alongside the Call for Sites Submissions, therefore Catesby Estates requests that a further review is undertaken to assess alternative settlements, alongside the Call for Sites Submissions to ensure it is fully reflective of the wider position. 3.19 In addition, Stratford’s Core Strategy sets out a number of Local Service Villages ; Tiddington is an identified Category 1 Local Service Village, scoring beyond 10 when assessed by the Council. Bishop’s Itchington, Harbury, Long Itchington and Quinton are also identified Category 1 Local Service Villages. However, the Settlement Analysis includes a number of those identified Local Service Villages within the Core Strategy, specifically Long Itchington, and other Category 2 Local Service Villages such as Salford Priors, Wilmcote and Wootton Wawen, but Tiddington is excluded from the Settlement Analysis, regardless of its existing position as a Category 1 Service Village. Therefore, the Settlement Analysis is not consistent with the approach of the existing Core Strategy and the exclusion of Tiddington is not justified. 3.20 The Analysis does also set out that there is potential for additional settlements to be assessed using the methodology set out in this document, if the spatial strategy to necessitate it. This needs to happen now to ensure the spatial strategy delivers sustainable development across the whole plan area. See extract from our Vision Document below showing the local services and facilities.
The South Warwickshire Settlement Analysis (SWSA) is a high-level desk-based analysis examining connectivity, accessibility and density. We acknowledge that such studies can provide useful comparative data when assessing and comparing different communities or settlements. However, we are also concerned that the study should not be over relied on as representing “hard evidence” when selecting sites for inclusion in the next stage of the SWLP process. The desk top nature of the SWSA inevitable results in a number of flaws. The study records two of the assessed areas in the Connectivity analysis (14 and 15) as having access to healthcare services. This is clearly not the case, there are no healthcare facilities in Long Itchington whatsoever. In the Landform Analysis map a large area in the centre of the map is shown as “green corridor” – which it is not. The identified area when viewed on Google Earth will appear as woodland, however, this is farmland that was planted 20 years with poplar trees under a subsidy scheme. The trees are able to be felled from 2025 and the land returned to general farmland. The model may provide comparative data regarding connectivity and accessibility; however, it contains no assessment of the relative levels of facilities that are being measured it terms of their connectivity and accessibility. Long Itchington is not very well served in terms of infrastructure and facilities and over recent years these have decreased in number (e.g. the closure of the newsagent in The Square and reduction in Post Office facilities). Since 2016 Long Itchington has experienced a significant increase in the overall number of dwellings, rising from approximately 900 in 2015 to the current total of over 1200, an increase of over 33%. The resulting increase in population has not been accompanied by any increase in either infrastructure/facilities or employment opportunities. The SWSA highlights the principle of the “20 minute neighbourhood” which is stated to be where residents can:- “Meet their regular day-to-day needs near to where they live (and/or work), and to do this within a reasonable distance of their homes (and/or workplace)” Residents of Long Itchington can meet some of their “day to day needs” within a 20-minute walk of their home (or workplace), however, many of their needs cannot be met without travelling to another community. The vast majority of such journeys are made by car. The infrastructure and facilities available in Long Itchington are in marked contrast to those available to other nearby comparable communities. Harbury and Kineton both have a significantly greater number of facilities, for example more general shops, doctors’ surgeries and libraries. In terms of population size all three communities are directly comparable. The 2011 census data reveals the population of Harbury as 2,420, the population of Kineton as 2,337 and the population of Long Itchington as 2,013. While all three communities have seen an increase in housing numbers since the 2011 census the increases in Kineton and Harbury are nowhere near the level of that in Long Itchington. Long Itchington currently has 2,100 voters registered on the electoral register and there estimated to be over 300 children within the community. Long Itchington therefore has a population approaching 2,500 and the limited infrastructure and facilities have not increased in line with the significant increase in population. There are very limited employment opportunities within the village and a significant number of residents commute by car to destinations outside the village. Given the current level of infrastructure and facilities available within the village the ”20 minute neighbourhood” model is not sustainable – and is unlikely to be so in the near future. This relative lack of infrastructure and facilities must be taken into account when assessing the allocation of further housing numbers for Long Itchington. The models proposing up to 350 additional houses would be completely unsustainable for the village and a much lower cap must be set for the number of additional dwellings to be built during the entire plan period to 2050. We are acutely aware that the current Core Strategy set an indicative target of 113 houses to be built during the lifetime of that plan (to 2031). By 2021 over 300 additional houses had been completed with 10 years of the plan period remaining.
Yes, intensification in towns should be the focus with a brownfield-first policy, taking windfalls fully into account. The Urban Capacity Study shows that there is limited potential in settlements outside major towns but opportunities in smaller settlements should be second priority, not greenfield sites.
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.
2.13 The settlement analysis does not consider all settlements in the Districts, it should also consider ‘networks of villages’ which can provide local amenities for new residential development. The settlement analysis should therefore be updated to include all settlements in the District, to do so would be in line with Paragraph 79 of the NPPG (2021) which states 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. Where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby.’
The land to the North East of Southam, that includes the land in Vistry’s control, has Connectivity Grade ‘D’ in the settlement analysis. This is as the A423 is a ‘hostile environment’ for no vehicular traffic. As detailed in our call for sites submission Vistry’s development proposals at Southam include the creation of a new roundabout access on to the A423, the principle of which has been agreed with WCC Highways. New pedestrian and cycle paths will be created at the access and the existing public footpath will be improved. The Settlement Analysis fails to recognise the opportunities the site provides by creating sustainable access to Southam town centre. The Settlement Analysis identifies land north east of Southam has having access to 5 local facilities within 800m. It is the joint best scoring site in Southam. The provision of land for a school on site and the significant amounts of open space will further bolster its suitability credentials.
We have the following comments to make: Alcester: • We welcome that the land north of Captain’s Hill has been deemed has having a fair connectivity grade and note that this contrasts with the west and south of the settlement which both have poorer connectivity grades. We consider this to be an accurate reflection of the situation on the ground where land to the east of the town, particularly to the northeast, benefits from nearer proximity to key services, facilities and the town’s main employment area. • We note the comment within the settlement design analysis which references ground levels and public rights of way. We consider that these constraints can be overcome by appropriate masterplanning that would see the public right of way effectively assimilated within any masterplan, which could be reinforced with green infrastructure and a more sensitive approach to the elevated parts of the site such as by adopting lower densities and/or storey heights. These constraints have been addressed by the FPCR development framework plan as attached at Enclosure 1 which was submitted to the call for sites. • Whilst we would note the Heritage and Settlement Sensitivity Assessment’s commentary about the heritage assets at Kinwarton and the need for a sensitive treatment to these, there is adequate land to the east of the town to allow for a sufficiently sympathetic masterplanning approach including green buffers. • We would note the positive assessment the site has received in Stratford District Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). Wootton Wawen • We welcome that the land north and south of Wawensmere Road and east of the train station is recognised as having good connectivity with the key services and facilities in the village and consider that this reflects the situation on the ground.
There should in the emerging Local Plan be a quite clear and positive settlement analysis. This analysis needs to be extremely detailed, settlement by settlement, not only recording the benefits but also the disbenefits of each settlement. The last settlement analysis under the Adopted Stratford Local Plan is now very considerably out of date and not fit for purpose. For instance, shopping habits have changed considerably as have community requirements, community sharing of facilities, etc.
There should, in the emerging Local Plan, be a quite clear and positive settlement analysis. This analysis needs to be extremely detailed, settlement by settlement, not only recording the benefits but also the disbenefits of each settlement. The last settlement analysis under the Adopted Stratford Local Plan is now very considerably out of date and not fit for purpose. For instance, shopping habits have changed considerably as have community requirements, community sharing of facilities, etc.
Q-S4.1: Do you think that growth of some of our existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy? Yes, growth of existing settlements can be a highly sustainable form of development but it should be considered on a case by case basis. The NPPF encourages plan-makers to ensure that all plans 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 (Paragraph 11a). Allowing for suitable levels of development to be added to existing settlements would promote a sustainable development pattern. The CEMEX Long Itchington site is located just outside the existing built up area boundary of Long Itchington and offers the opportunity to provide a logical residential infill development. This would be a minor alteration to the settlement boundary and provide a logical conclusion to the eastern expansion of Long Itchington which is linear in its character. 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 The Settlement Analysis focuses on 3 key components: Connectivity, Accessibility and Density. Long Itchington is identified as an additional settlement for assessment. The site is allocated as area number 14, it is found to have a Connectivity Grade of B, where A is the best connectivity. The Connectivity Grade Analysis states that there are cycle routes to the south along the canal and track access from the road to towpath. A potential connection to cycle route and link along the canal and discussed railway to the south. No readings are given in terms of landform analysis, i.e. the site is not within Flood Zones 2 and 3 nor is it green infrastructure. In regards to Local Facilities within 800m of the site, it has access to all items identified: retail, jobs and economy; places to meet; open space, leisure, recreation – wellbeing; healthcare and education. This means it is one of the highest scoring sites, the only other being the CEMEX site to the south (area 15). This shows that the site is a positive development prospect at the edge of the settlement and has good prospect for growth in the context of connectivity and accessibility. The most recent SHLAA (September 2021) finds that the Long Itchington site (LONG.07) secures some ‘Amber’ issues and one ‘Red’ and concludes that the site can contribute 39 units in years 1 – 5. In order to support the promotion of the Site through the emerging Development Plan CEMEX has undertaken an exercise to update the evidence base and respond to the amber and red issues identified. An illustrative layout has also been prepared to demonstrate how development can be brought forward on the site (see Appendix 2). A Pre-Application request was submitted to agree to remove the technical impediments to delivery (see Appendix 2 for updated pack). The Case Officer’s Preapplication Response (see Appendix 3) suggested that further advice was required from County Officers in regard to Ecology, Landscape, Heritage, Transport, and Flooding. It should be noted that Stantec held preapplication discussions with Warwickshire County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority which informed the suggested illustrative masterplan. CEMEX has instructed the engagement with the remaining consultees and pre-application requests have been submitted seeking further advice. The consultant team has prepared a further update to their reports as part of the evidence base and this is submitted in support of the Call for Sites submission, it shows that there are no technical impediments to the site coming forward for development. We would therefore suggest that there is a need for the Council to undertake a further review through the HELAA.
Within the settlement analysis Stratford has been split into 4 different areas: northwest; northeast; southwest and southeast. Land at Clopton Quarter lies within the southeast area which is identified as a potential Broad Location for growth within the emerging Local Plan and Sustainability Appraisal (SA) (see Appendix 4 for our commentary on this SA). We wholly disagree with the conclusions of Heritage and Settlement Sensitivity Assessment which concludes that from a heritage perspective, development beyond the north-eastern edge of Stratford should be avoided and that development should be restricted to the northwest, east, south and west of Stratford. Clopton Quarter in the northeast is able to come forward for 700 units without causing unacceptable harm in heritage terms given it is a smaller area than the Broad Location for growth considered for 2,000 units. This representation includes a copy of the Vision Document previously submitted to promote Land at Clopton Quarter for residential development. A heritage assessment has been carried out which summarises that Land at Clopton Quarter is able to come forward for 700 units. There are no known below ground, archaeological constraints to the promotion/development of the site and whilst further surveys would be required to support any future planning application the site is assessed to have a low/negligible potential for significant remains of all periods. In respect of non-designated built heritage assets, the HER identifies Clopton Park located immediately adjacent (south-east and north-east) of the site. This landscape comprises a post-medieval former deer park which also incorporates elements of seventeenth and nineteenth century landscape design surrounding Clopton House (Grade II* Listed Building). The allocation of the site would have the potential to affect the heritage significance of Clopton House (Grade II* Listed Building) and the non-designated built heritage assets of Clopton Park, Lower Clopton Farm, Clopton Cottages and Gable Cottage through changes within their settings. This is however, not considered a constraint to the allocation of the site as the potential harm can be mitigated through design and master planning of the development, as demonstrated through our Vision Document Masterplan. This has heavily influenced the design of the initial masterplan. Furthermore, other options around the edge of Stratford, such as the remainder of the Broad Location B.26 and land to the west of Stratford would have greater heritage impacts that Land at Clopton Quarter, for example, harm to the setting of Anne Hathaway’s Cottage. Containing growth to the land under Davidsons control will also prevent encroachment towards Tiddington; the current Broad Location for Growth in this area for up to 2,000 units will result in unacceptable heritage and environmental impacts and will risk a sense of coalescence towards Tiddington, however Land at Clopton Quarter will not result in these impacts and will deliver 700 valuable units to Stratford. In addition to the site being suitable for development in itself, it is also important to highlight that it is the only logical location for further growth at Stratford, and Stratford must take some growth. Land to the west / north west is designated as Green Belt too, however this area has no defensible boundaries and the release of this Green Belt land would result in unrestricted sprawl into the open countryside and it is severed from Stratford-Upon-Avon by the A46, meaning that residents would be separated with no permeability into the town. This location is also further from Stratford than Clopton Quarter, meaning it is a less sustainable option. Whilst the land to the southwest / south / southeast is not designated as Green Belt, these areas bring their own problems in delivering sustainable development in Stratford. Land to the south of the racecourse is designated as Flood Risk Zone 3, and so would not be suitable. Any development towards Long Marston as part of a new settlement and any further development off Banbury Road / the A3400 to the southwest of Stratford would be reliant on the completion of the South West Relief Road. This road was rejected for Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) funding and whilst the Cala scheme has contributed £45million towards the road, there is a funding gap of £86million with no clear delivery mechanism. Without this road further development will create chronic traffic problems in the centre of Stratford as the only way to join the A46 would be to use Bridge Street / Bridge Foot. Traffic along this route would be increased to an unacceptable level. Any further development to the west would be further away from the centre of Stratford and would thus be less sustainable. It would also bring unacceptable heritage impact to Anne Hathaway’s Cottage and the surrounding area. Further development to the northwest would also be too detached from Stratford, leading to unsustainable development and an over-reliance on the car. In conclusion, the site is acceptable in heritage terms and is a logical location for growth considering that the other locations around the edge of Stratford are not suitable and will lead to unacceptable highway impacts. We therefore request that Land at Clopton Quarter is considered in isolation, excluding the remainder of the potential Broad Location for growth, as a suitable residential allocation within the South Warwickshire Local Plan.
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, we consider that growth of some of South Warwickshire’s existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy. This approach is consistent with national planning policy and basic sustainability principles to ensure that housing is focused in existing settlements, such as Bidford-on-Avon, where there are existing services and where there is a need to ensure vitality. South Warwickshire has a dispersed settlement pattern (as set out in Policy CS.15 of the adopted Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy) and is home to a significant number of existing settlements of varying sizes. The explanatory text under Issue S4 sets out that there are nine towns (Alcester, Henley-in-Arden, Kenilworth, Royal Leamington Spa, Shipston-onStour, Southam, Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwick and Whitnash), at least 82 villages and hundreds of hamlets. Issue S4 sets out that the South Warwickshire Local Plan will seek to maximise the capacity of its existing urban areas in order to meet development needs to 2050. However, in deciding upon the best distribution strategy for new development within South Warwickshire, it is important for the Local Plan to consider the potential for growth around the edges of the existing settlements. Bidford-on-Avon is categorised as a ‘Main Rural Centre’ in Policy CS.15 of the adopted Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy. The settlement hierarchy is defined below: 1. Main Town: Stratford-upon-Avon 2. Main Rural Centres (including Bidford-on-Avon) 3. New Settlements 4. Local Service Villages 5. Large Rural Brownfield Sites 6. All other settlements 7. Local Needs Schemes Therefore, Bidford-on-Avon is identified as one of the most sustainable settlements in the settlement hierarchy and spatial distribution of growth in Stratford-upon-Avon district. Bidford-on-Avon is a large village which contains a range of local services and facilities, including a supermarket, convenience store, primary school, pharmacy, restaurants and public houses. There is an established industrial estate, which supports a wide range of jobs, to the north of Bidford-on-Avon off Waterloo Road. Given the need to accommodate development needs for housing within South Warwickshire, in addition to meeting the housing shortfalls from outside of South Warwickshire, Bidford-on-Avon is clearly a sustainable location to accommodate additional housing growth. The promotion site is a suitable location for housing by reason of the fact it comprises previously developed land close to the defined Built-up Area Boundary of Bidford-onAvon and is within walking distance of a main bus corridor. The scale of development is appropriate to Bidford-on-Avon, due to its position within the settlement hierarchy as a Main Rural Centre. Any scheme brought forward on this site would be designed to respect the existing settlement and be fully integrated. The Site has been carefully considered to enable a comprehensive planned development to be achieved to deliver new housing which is well-located in relation to the village and will enhance its vitality in line with national planning policy. Accordingly, it is considered that the Site should be allocated as a residential site within the South Warwickshire Local Plan.
17. It is unfortunate the Settlement Analysis Report in dividing the southern urban area Warwick and Leamington Spa; and only focussing on land immediately adjacent to the village of Bishop’s Tachbrook means that Land East of Europa Way has not been assessed. Clearly there is time to remedy this unfortunate consequence of subdividing assessment areas. Any assessment is likely to identify the Site as having better than average connectivity, with opportunities to join up with Europa Way, Banbury Road, north to Lower Heathcote and east towards Bishop’s Tachbrook. Any assessment should be mindful of the detailed consents at the Asps, Tachbrook Country Park and Oakley Grove and the proposed improvements to the Europa Way corridor.
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.
This response is made in respect of Stratford-upon-Avon. The Heritage and Settlement Sensitivity Assessment for Warwick and Stratford-on-Avon Local plan correctly includes land to the west of the BUAB within the “800m buffer of urban extent”. An extract from the report is below, with SWDP Ref ID 21 identified with a blue arrow. However, the settlement analysis as a whole is flawed because the Sustainability Appraisal has omitted to examine land (such as Ref ID 21) to the west of Built up Area Boundary of Stratford-upon-Avon. More specifically, Appendix B of the Sustainability Appraisal of the South Warwickshire Local Plan – Regulation 18: Issue and Options Stage is an “Assessment of Reasonable Alternative Broad Locations” at • B.25 Stratford-upon-Avon East • B.26 Stratford-upon-Avon Northeast • B.27. Stratford-upon-Avon Northwest • B.28. Stratford-upon-Avon South • B.29 Stratford-upon-Avon Southwest However, none of these broad locations examine land due west of the BUAB (eg adjacent to SUA2) which is capable of being a broad location for growth. In other words, there is land to the west of the BUAB that falls neither within B27 or B29. The knock-on effect of failing to examine land to the west of the BUAB is that SA Volume 2 - Main Report chapter 4.14 “Stratford-upon-Avon” is incomplete or unreliable. This omission is particularly unacceptable given there are many constraints of developing land at B25 to B29, such as: • B.27 Stratford-upon-Avon Northwest” is located in Green Belt. • B.28. Stratford-upon-Avon South contains an Area of Restraint and Grade 2 agricultural land. • B.29 Stratford-upon-Avon Southwest has potential impact on heritage assets. Whereas land due west of the BUAB has no such constraints to growth and therefore it should be examined by the Sustainability Appraisal.
Yes, we consider that growth of some of South Warwickshire’s existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy. This approach is consistent with national planning policy and basic sustainability principles to ensure that housing is focused in existing settlements, such as Wellesbourne, where there are existing services and where there is a need to ensure vitality. South Warwickshire has a dispersed settlement pattern (as set out in Policy CS.15 of the adopted Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy) and is home to a significant number of existing settlements of varying sizes. The explanatory text under Issue S4 sets out that there are nine towns (Alcester, Henley-in-Arden, Kenilworth, Royal Leamington Spa, Shipston-onStour, Southam, Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwick and Whitnash), at least 82 villages and hundreds of hamlets. Issue S4 sets out that the South Warwickshire Local Plan will seek to maximise the capacity of its existing urban areas in order to meet development needs to 2050. However, in deciding upon the best distribution strategy for new development within South Warwickshire, it is important for the Local Plan to consider the potential for growth around the edges of the existing settlements. Wellesbourne is categorised as a ‘Main Rural Centre’ in Policy CS.15 of the adopted Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy. The settlement hierarchy is defined below: 1. Main Town: Stratford-upon-Avon 2. Main Rural Centres (including Wellesbourne) 3. New Settlements 4. Local Service Villages 5. Large Rural Brownfield Sites 6. All other settlements 7. Local Needs Schemes Therefore, Wellesbourne is identified as one of the most sustainable settlements in the settlement hierarchy and spatial distribution of growth in Stratford-upon-Avon district. Wellesbourne is a large village which contains a range of local services and facilities, including a supermarket, convenience store, primary school, a sports and community centre, medical centres, pharmacy, restaurants and public houses. There is an established employment area, which provides a range of jobs, to the north west of Wellesbourne adjacent to Wellesbourne Mountford Aerodrome. Given the need to accommodate development needs for housing within South Warwickshire, in addition to meeting the housing shortfalls from outside of South Warwickshire, Wellesbourne is clearly a sustainable location to accommodate additional housing growth. The SWLP also explores opportunities for Wellesbourne to attract inward investment as a centre for aviation innovation, owing to the opportunities provided by the co-location of Wellesbourne Mountford Aerodrome and the University of Warwick campus at Wellesbourne, which provides research and education in engineering, manufacturing and technology. Positioning dwellings close to jobs and services, creating walkable neighbourhoods, can have a positive impact on the sustainability of a settlement. The promotion site is a suitable location for housing by reason of the fact it comprises previously developed land immediately adjoining the Built-up Area Boundary of Wellesbourne adjacent to existing residential development to the east. The scale of development is appropriate to Wellesbourne, due to its position within the settlement hierarchy as a Main Rural Centre. Any scheme brought forward on this site would be designed to respect the existing settlement and be fully integrated. The Site has been carefully considered to enable a comprehensive planned development to be achieved to deliver new housing (market and affordable) which is well-located in relation to the village and will enhance its vitality in line with national planning policy. Accordingly, it is considered that the Site should be allocated as a residential site within the South Warwickshire Local Plan.
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.
No answer given
This response is made on behalf of Rosconn Strategic Land, in respect of land west of Kineton Road, Wellesbourne, which was submitted into the call for sites June 2021. Detailed information was submitted as part of the Call for Sites which indicated the site was suitable for development within the next 5 years. An independently prepared Landscape Statement confirmed the site is well-contained by existing residential development and vegetation, with limited views of the site from the majority of the settlement. A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal has shown the site area to be Iow in botanical diversity and with little biodiversity value. A Development Framework Plan was submitted to demonstrate that the area of flood risk, along the river, would not be used for development and that the comments of the Local Highway Authority, in respect to access, had been taken into account. The Development Framework Plan showed how the site could be developed with a scheme for 70 dwellings. Wellesbourne is assessed as a “smaller settlement” in several of the technical evidence documents published to support the Issues and Options consultation exercise. The key points are set out below. In the Bus Accessibility Mapping for South Warwickshire, many parts of Wellesbourne are currently within 15-30 minutes of a major town, and less than 15 minutes from a minor town. There are a number of employment centres within 0-15 minutes travel time, as well as GPs, dentists and pharmacies, and with a hospital, secondary schools and colleges less than 30 minutes away. Wellesbourne is well connected with Stratford-upon-Avon to the east, Warwick and Leamington to the north and smaller towns such as Kineton to the south. There is nothing in the Heritage and Settlement Sensitivity Assessment to suggest that a well-designed development could not take place on this site. In the Settlement Design Analysis, this site west of Kineton Road is identified as having moderate connectivity (category C) with the settlement, partially fronting onto a primary street and close to existing shops, services and amenities in the heart of the village, with major employers nearby at the Wellesbourne Airfield. The site scores well when considering the number of local facilities within 800m. It is noted that the site would provide an opportunity for a footpath along the river. Existing residential areas adjoining two boundaries of the site are classed as “outer suburbs” with a density between 20 – 40dpha. A new development proposing a density of 35 dpha would not be out of character with the character of this part of Wellesbourne. In the section of the Sustainability Appraisal covering Wellesbourne: • The potential for development in Wellesbourne to increase GHG emissions can be mitigated; • The Development Framework Plan submitted with the call for sites submission shows how the site can be developed utilising land within flood zone 1 only; • A well-designed scheme will not cause any harm to Habitat Sites beyond but connected to the site. The site lies beyond the Loxley Church Meadow SSSI IRZ. The site does not lie within the ancient woodland Wellesbourne Wood, nor does it lie within its buffer zone. Whilst the site is identified as an Ecosite and a Local Wildlife Site, the submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal has shown the limited value of this site in respect of both botanical diversity and biodiversity value. The river corridor is identified as ecologically important (it is a pSINC) and would not be developed. • This site does not lie within the Dunsmore and Feldon SLA and the Landscape Statement, provided with the call for sites submission, confirms this site is well-contained by existing residential development and vegetation, with limited views of the site from the majority of the settlement. A well-designed and suitably landscaped scheme will not have a harmful impact upon views from the PRoW on the far side of the River Dene and crossing through the south-eastern part of this site; • There will be no impact on any heritage assets as a result of developing this site; • The majority of the site is set back from Kineton Road and there will be no unacceptable noise or air pollution for future occupiers of these homes. The water quality of the River Dene can be protected through the submission and approval of a suitable drainage strategy for the site; • Whilst most of the land around Wellesbourne has been categorised as ALC grade 2 land, this is a small land parcel, with housing on two sides and the river on a third, and most recently used as paddocks for horses. The agricultural usefulness of this land is very limited and should not be a reason to prevent development of this site; • Whilst Wellesbourne is identified as being outside the sustainable distance to access A&E services at a hospital, this measure does not take into account the large and recently completed health centre in the heart of the village, which provides for a wide range of health care needs, and the hospital facilities, including minor injuries clinic, provided in Stratford-upon-Avon; • Wellesbourne scores very highly with regard to access to leisure facilities and access to greenspace, as well as access to PRoW and cycle path networks and bus stops; • Wellesbourne also scores well for access to local services, a primary school and employment opportunities. In considering the 5 Spatial Growth Options put forwards in the Issues and Options proposals, this site would fit well with options 2 (sustainable travel), 3 (economy), 4 (sustainable travel and economy) and 5 (dispersed).
This response is made on behalf of Rosconn Strategic Land (RSL), in respect of land at Darlingscote Road, Shipston-on-Stour, which was submitted into the call for sites June 2021. RSL welcomes the recognition that Shipston-on-Stour is a settlement suitable for growth and supports the principle of the expansion of this town. This site falls within Broad Location B.18 Shipston-on-Stour North, as set out within the Sustainability Appraisal published November 2022. Several of the technical evidence documents published to support the Issues and Options consultation exercise are relevant and the key points are set out below. In the Bus Accessibility Mapping for South Warwickshire, Shipston-on-Stour is defined as a “major town”, within 15-30 minutes of other major towns and less than 15 minutes from minor towns in the locality. Employment centres, hospitals, GPs, dentists, pharmacies, secondary schools and colleges are all within 15 minutes travel time. Shipston-on-Stour North is identified “green” in the Heritage and Settlement Sensitivity Assessment, as an area where modern development encloses the historic core and its designated assets and there is scope for development to take place. In the Settlement Design Analysis, Shipston-on-Stour is defined as a “smaller settlement” and this site is identified as site 7, having moderate connectivity (category C) with the settlement. The site scores well with regards to the number of local facilities within 800m. The closest residential area in the northern part of the town is classed as “inner suburb” with a density between 40 – 60dpha. A new development proposing a density of 35 dpha would not be out of character with the character of this part of the town. Alternatively, the site would work well as an extension to the adjacent employment area. In the section of the Sustainability Appraisal covering Broad Location B.18 Shipston-on-Stour North: • The potential for development to increase GHG emissions can be mitigated or compensated for; The site lies within flood zone 1 and the appraisal recognises that a minor positive impact on risk from riparian flooding would be expected. Using the Environment Agency website, there is no record of surface water flooding risk on this site; • A well-designed scheme will not cause any harm to any Habitat Site or SSSI beyond the site and there are no other known ecological or biodiversity constraints that would restrict development of this site; • The surrounding landscape has no special designation and development here would not lead to coalescence between settlements. There is a public footpath running along part of the eastern boundary of the site and this could be accommodated within the layout of the development. A well-designed and suitably landscaped scheme would minimise impacts of development upon the surrounding landscape; • The nearest listed buildings are approximately 350m from the eastern site boundary and the nearest corner of the Shipston-on-Stour Conservation Area is approximately 600m to the east. The site is separated from these heritage assets by existing commercial and residential development and, if there are any impacts on heritage assets, these could be mitigated through layout and design; • Design, layout and construction methods can mitigate any potential for noise or air pollution associated with the adjacent employment area. There is existing residential development adjacent to this employment land and it is not anticipated there will be any unacceptable impacts; • This land is categorised as ALC grade 3. Even if the land is found to lie within grade 3A, only a small parcel (less than 3ha) is promoted for development and this should not be a reason to prevent development of this site; • Whilst this Broad Location is identified as being outside the sustainable distance to access A&E services at a hospital, the appraisal recognises that a major positive impact on access to GP surgeries would be expected following the development of the Broad Location; • The appraisal also recognises the potential for a major positive impact on health as the majority of the Broad Location is within the sustainable target distance to Shipston Leisure Centre, along with access to greenspaces, PRoW and cycle path networks and bus stops; • The Broad Location scores well for access to food stores, local services, a primary school, secondary school and employment opportunities; • Broad Location B.18 Shipston-on-Stour North scores higher than broad locations to the East or South-west of the town and is considered best in the accessibility, education and economy categories for assessment. • In considering the 5 Spatial Growth Options put forwards in the Issues and Options proposals, this site would fit well with options 2 (sustainable travel), 3 (economy), 4 (sustainable travel and economy) and 5 (dispersed).
This response is made on behalf of Rosconn Strategic Land (RSL), in respect of land at Tilemans Lane, Shipston-on-Stour, which was submitted into the call for sites June 2021. RSL welcomes the recognition that Shipston-on-Stour is a settlement suitable for growth and supports the principle of the expansion of this town. This site falls within Broad Location B.18 Shipston-on-Stour North, as set out within the Sustainability Appraisal published November 2022. Several of the technical evidence documents published to support the Issues and Options consultation exercise are relevant and the key points are set out below. In the Bus Accessibility Mapping for South Warwickshire, Shipston-on-Stour is defined as a “major town”, within 15-30 minutes of other major towns and less than 15 minutes from minor towns in the locality. Employment centres, hospitals, GPs, dentists, pharmacies, secondary schools and colleges are all within 15 minutes travel time. Shipston-on-Stour North is identified “green” in the Heritage and Settlement Sensitivity Assessment, as an area where modern development encloses the historic core and its designated assets and there is scope for development to take place. In the Settlement Design Analysis, Shipston-on-Stour is defined as a “smaller settlement” and this site is identified as site 8, scoring well with regards to the number of local facilities within 800m. As such, there are no major constraints to achieving a safe access to the public highway for vehicles. The existing residential area, adjacent to the southern boundary, is classed as “inner suburb” with a density between 40 – 60dpha. A new development proposing a density of 35 dpha would not be out of character with the character of this part of the town. A pre-application response from the Local Highway Authority, attached to the previous call for sites submission, confirms that a major residential development would be acceptable in principle from a highway safety perspective. In the section of the Sustainability Appraisal covering Broad Location B.18 Shipston-on-Stour North: • The potential for development to increase GHG emissions can be mitigated or compensated for; The site lies within flood zone 1 and the appraisal recognises that a minor positive impact on risk from riparian flooding would be expected. Using the Environment Agency website, there is a small part of the site at low risk of surface water flooding and a well-considered drainage strategy for the site could potentially bring benefits to surrounding land; • A well-designed scheme will not cause any harm to any Habitat Site or SSSI beyond the site and there are no other known ecological or biodiversity constraints that would restrict development of this site. The previously submitted Preliminary Ecological Appraisal confirms that the majority of the site was intensive arable land under continuous cultivation and therefore of low ecological potential; • The surrounding landscape has no special designation and development here would not lead to coalescence between settlements. A Landscape Technical Note, included with the call for sites submission, concludes that the site is already influenced strongly by the settlement edge in the form of large industrial units and existing, high density residential development. The site is not considered to be particularly rare in the wider landscape context nor representative of any key positive landscape attributes locally, primarily due to its close relationship with the settlement edge. Views of the site will be screened and filtered by the built form associated with the settlement and existing natural features, including dense woodland to the northern and eastern boundaries. In terms of the site’s relationship with the countryside beyond the northern and eastern boundaries, this tree and woodland planting can be retained and enhanced where necessary around the edges of the site as shown on the previously submitted illustrative masterplan; • The Archaeology and Heritage Desk-based Assessment previously submitted has found that no designated heritage assets lie close to the site and are separated from it by intervening buildings and vegetation. The site is assessed to have low archaeological potential for sub-surface remains; • Design, layout and construction methods can mitigate any potential for noise or air pollution associated with the adjacent employment area. There is existing residential development adjacent to this employment land and it is not anticipated there will be any unacceptable impacts; • This land is categorised as ALC grade 3. Even if the land is found to lie within grade 3A, only a relatively small land parcel of less than 6ha is promoted for development and this should not be a reason to prevent development of this site; • Whilst this Broad Location is identified as being outside the sustainable distance to access A&E services at a hospital, the appraisal recognises that a major positive impact on access to GP surgeries would be expected following the development of the Broad Location; • The appraisal also recognises the potential for a major positive impact on health as the majority of the Broad Location is within the sustainable target distance to Shipston Leisure Centre, along with access to greenspaces, PRoW and cycle path networks and bus stops; • The Broad Location scores well for access to food stores, local services, a primary school, secondary school and employment opportunities; Broad Location B.18 Shipston-on-Stour North scores higher than broad locations to the East or South-west of the town and is considered best in the accessibility, education and economy categories for assessment. • In considering the 5 Spatial Growth Options put forwards in the Issues and Options proposals, this site would fit well with options 2 (sustainable travel), 3 (economy), 4 (sustainable travel and economy) and 5 (dispersed).
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, we consider that growth of some of South Warwickshire’s existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy. South Warwickshire has a dispersed settlement pattern and is home to a significant number of existing settlements of varying sizes. The explanatory text under Issue S4 sets out that there are nine towns (Alcester, Henley-in-Arden, Kenilworth, Royal Leamington Spa, Shipston-on-Stour, Southam, Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwick and Whitnash), at least 82 villages and hundreds of hamlets. Issue S4 sets out that the South Warwickshire Local Plan will seek to maximise the capacity of its existing urban areas in order to meet development needs to 2050. However, in deciding upon the best distribution strategy for new development within South Warwickshire, it is important for the Local Plan to consider the potential for growth around the edges of the existing settlements. As set out in Strategic Policy DS4 of the current Warwick District Local Plan, the majority of growth in Warwick District is focused on the main urban areas of Warwick, Leamington, Whitnash and Kenilworth and on the southern edge of Coventry. The distribution of development is as follows: a) Previously developed land within urban areas and in particular those areas where there is greatest potential for regeneration and enhancement; b) Where greenfield sites are required for housing, they should generally be located on the edge of built-up areas in sustainable locations close to areas of employment or where community facilities such as shops, bus services, medical facilities and schools are available or can be made available; c) Where greenfield sites are required for employment, they should be suitably located for the needs of 21st century businesses, accessible via a choice of transport modes and in close proximity to existing or proposed housing; d) Limiting development on sites that would lead to the coalescence of settlements to ensure settlement identity is retained; e) sites that have a detrimental impact on the significance of heritage assets will be avoided unless the public benefits of development outweighs the harm; f) areas assessed as high landscape value or other highly sensitive features in the natural environment will be avoided; and g) taking the national green belt policy into account, sites that are currently in the green belt will only be allocated where exceptional circumstances can be justified. Kenilworth is one of the main urban areas in the District and comprises one of the most sustainable settlements in the spatial distribution of growth. Land at Warwick Road, Kenilworth is located on the southern edge of Kenilworth. The adjacent neighbourhood to the north of the Site (known as ‘Castle End’) includes numerous local services, such as a post office and St John’s Primary School which are within a 15-minute walk. Additional leisure services are available along the A452 and within the Oaks Precinct Shopping Centre, including beauty salons and takeaways. Kenilworth School Sixth Form lies north west of the Site within a 5–10-minute walking distance. A greater diversity of facilities can be found within Kenilworth’s town centre along the northern end of Warwick Road and Abbey End. The main town centre is within a 5–10- minute cycle distance of the Site. The promotion site is therefore well connected to the built-up area of Kenilworth and would constitute sustainable development in accordance with Strategic Policy DS4 of the Warwick District Local Plan. Indeed, it is considered that the new homes at land at Warwick Road will comply with the 20-minute neighbourhood concept, owing to the close proximity of the site to Kenilworth’s services and facilities. Given the pressing need for additional housing within Warwick District, Kenilworth is clearly a sustainable location to accommodate additional housing growth. The Site has been carefully considered to enable a comprehensive planned development to be achieved to deliver new housing (market and affordable) which is well-located in relation to the town and will enhance its vitality in line with national planning policy. Accordingly, it is considered that the Site should be allocated as a residential site within the South Warwickshire Local Plan.
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.