Q-S4.1: Do you think that growth of some of our existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy?
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 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. Hockley Heath is one such sustainable settlement which should be considered for growth. This would continue – and be consistent with - the current settlement hierarchy and plan strategy in Warwick, which allocates housing to Hockley Heath. Q-S4:2 GR No18 Ltd have an interest in a site at Hockley Heath. The site has been submitted to the Call for Sites. Separately, a Vision Document has been prepared and submitted with these representations to demonstrate the clear rationale for carrying forward the existing residential allocation (H18) into the new SWLP. In summary the site is; • Suitable for housing, developer owned and available now • Infill plot between existing residential development • Sustainable location on edge of large village • Currently allocated for residential in adopted Local Plan • Eastern portion of existing allocation already built-out • Small-scale and proportionate to existing settlement • Connects the housing to the east back-into Hockley Heath • Accessible to local facilities and services • Good bus links to Solihull, Stratford, Shirley and Dorridge • No significant development constraints • In-keeping with established settlement character • Mix of house types, sizes and tenures to meet local needs • Contributes towards emerging SWLP objectives and vision • No significant contribution to purposes of Green Belt.
10. Yes, we consider that growth of some of South Warwickshire’s existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy. 11. 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-on-Stour, Southam, Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwick and Whitnash), at least 82 villages and hundreds of hamlets. 12. 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 (of all categories). 13. Ettington is categorised as a ‘Category 3 Local Service Village in Policy CS.15 of the adopted Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy. 14. Ettington offers a large range of services and facilities, including a shop, post office, community centre adjacent to a children’s playground, MUGA and playing fields, pub, hotel and conference centre church, and a primary school. The nearest bus stop is on Banbury Road, 5 minutes from the site. 15. Land at Old Warwick Road, Ettington located immediately adjoins the built-up area boundary of Ettington and existing residential development to the north and east. The promotion site would be well connected to the built-up area of and would constitute sustainable development. 16. Given the pressing need for additional housing within the Stratford-on-Avon District, Ettington 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. There is a need to allocate small sites as well as large site as they play a role in delivering housing quickly and contribute to the vitality and viability of existing villages. Accordingly, it is considered that the Site should be allocated as a residential site within the South Warwickshire Local Plan.
17. 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.”
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
3.20. Studley is assessed as a whole for the purposes of the Settlement Design Analysis which forms part of the Council’s evidence. The land south-west of Studley is identified as parcels 8 and 9 which score a C and B for accessibility respectively. This is also the case for the other parcels assessed around Studley. It is acknowledged that there are existing Public Rights of Way (PRoW) within this area which would be considered and integrated as part of any development proposals. 3.21. The landform analysis demonstrates that the land south-west of Studley is the least constrained area around the village. It highlights the presence of existing green infrastructure to the north of the village and significant areas of flood risk to the east/south-east associated with the River Arrow. 3.22. The local facilities analysis states that both parcels are within 800m of places to meet, open space, leisure & recreation and education. Parcel 8 is within 800m of retail, jobs and economy and Parcel 9 is within 800m of healthcare. It should be noted that this analysis does not consider potential additional linkages which could be created, including between the parcels. 3.23. The adjacent residential developments are identified as having a mix of inner suburb (40-60 dph) and outer suburb (20-40 dph) densities. It is likely that this site would reflect a mix of appropriate densities across the site.
QS4.1 Growth of existing settlements – Growth of existing settlements should only be considered where it does not require development in the greenbelt. Previous growth of existing settlements in non-greenbelt locations should not prevent further development and infrastructure should be invested to support further non-greenbelt development. Where growth of existing settlements cannot be assured without using greenbelt land, alternative solutions should be considered that do not involve development in greenbelt land.
QS4.1 Growth of existing settlements – Growth of existing settlements should only be considered where it does not require development in the greenbelt. Previous growth of existing settlements in non-greenbelt locations should not prevent further development and infrastructure should be invested to support further non-greenbelt development. Where growth of existing settlements cannot be assured without using greenbelt land, alternative solutions should be considered that do not involve development in greenbelt land.
2.19 In support the spatial strategy for South Warwickshire, the South Warwickshire Settlement Analysis (SWSA) has centred its search for sustainable development locations around the 20-minute neighbourhood principle. This has limited the settlement assessed as part of the growth strategy to those settlements in the urban area and higher-level rural villages. 2.20 The Summary page (Page 2) sets out the context for the SWLP Local Plan Part 1, in that it will set out the overall strategy for the pattern, scale and design quality of places within South Warwickshire. Part 2 of the SWLP will set out the planning policy documents setting out detailed policies for specific areas, neighbourhoods or types of development, which could include site allocation. 2.21 Whilst it is appreciated that specific site allocations will come forward in Part 2 of the plan, it is important that the benefits of smaller sites on the edge of smaller villages are taken into account in the SWLP spatial approach to growth. Paragraph 69 of the NPPF acknowledges the contribution to housing delivery that smaller sites can make to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to have a decent home to live in. 2.22 To facilitate this, the spatial strategy within the SWLP should include provision for residential development on the edge of smaller settlements. The Settlement Analysis should also consider ‘networks of villages’ which can provide local amenities for new residential development. 2.23 Accordingly, 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.’
3.20. Wellesbourne is assessed as a whole for the purposes of the Settlement Design Analysis which forms part of the Council’s evidence. The site is identified as parcels 10 and 11 which score a D and C for accessibility respectively. This does not appear to have considered the opportunities to enhance accessibility, for example through connections with existing adjacent residential developments. 3.21. The comments section notes that the village feels unbalanced to the south and that development on parcel 10 would close the gap between the village and the enclosing hill/woodland to the south. As set out in the accompanying Vision Document, there are good reasons to focus growth to the south of the village in view of the significant constraints of much of the land to the north of the village, notably the areas of flood zones 2 and 3 associated with the River Dene and River Avon. The south of the village has no such constraints and is well located to accommodate growth, with good access to local services and facilities, particularly at the Distribution Park which accommodates a Sainsburys food store. The Vision Document includes consideration of the landscape and visual opportunities and constraints for this site. It notes that this site adjoins the existing settlement edge and therefore residential development in this location would complement the existing context and reduce the susceptibility and sensitivity of the landscape. It also notes that the offset requirements for the woodland coincide with the higher ground on this site (as noted on the Wellesbourne Landform Analysis plan) and would act to retain the local landscape context. 3.22. The local facilities analysis states that both parcels are within 800m of open space, leisure, recreation – wellbeing opportunities. It should be noted that Parcel 10 is within 800m of the access for Sainsburys. 3.23. The adjacent residential developments are identified as having a mix of inner suburb (40-60 dph) and outer suburb (20-40 dph) densities. It is likely that this site would reflect a mix of appropriate densities across the site.
The Consultation Document at the start of this section notes that “South Warwickshire has a dispersed settlement pattern and is home to a significant number of existing settlements of varying sizes.” The Consultation Document goes on to note that as well as the 9 identified main towns, South Warwickshire has 82 villages and hundreds of hamlets. It is stated that the SWLP will seek to maximise the capacity of existing urban areas to meet development needs to 2050, and this aim is entirely in compliance with the NPPF and is supported. However, given the dispersed settlement pattern of the area it must also be true that a significant number of residents of South Warwickshire live and work in these rural settlements, and therefore the spatial strategy must also have recognition of the needs of these places to see some development to sustain these communities into the future. The Consultation Document goes on to discuss the concept of 20-minute neighbourhoods as a tool for the creation of sustainable communities, but notes that: “In rural areas, the implementation of the 20-minute neighbourhood poses a different set of challenges, including poor broadband and mobile phone coverage, inferior public transport provision and road transport, and a poor variety of employment opportunities. Housing affordability and isolation from and access to services are other issues facing many rural areas.” The solutions suggested are either that market towns become 20-minute neighbourhoods to which residents of smaller villages must travel to access services, or the creation of rural networks of villages which develop services that people need accessible by local public transport. With greater numbers of people working from home and looking to live in more rural areas, it is suggested that the option of concentrating services only in the larger market towns will simply lead to more trips to these locations, predominantly by car, to access day to day services, and the associated depletion of services in smaller settlements without a critical mass of people using them to sustain viability. We would argue that there is an opportunity to develop networks of rural settlements, sustained by accessibility to homes, jobs and services, with the larger market towns accessed when residents need to access higher level services that are more efficiently provided in the larger towns. Such an approach could complement the maximisation of the use of existing urban areas to accommodate strategic growth, but would enable rural settlements to accommodate modest growth and sustainable patterns of development. To take Ettington as an example, the Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy identifies Ettington as a Category 3 Local Service Village. It is identified as such based on its size and the range of facilities available including a Spar shop, Primary School, pub, employment opportunities including the Ettington Hall Hotel and bus routes leading to Stratford and Banbury. The Core Strategy identified that Category 3 settlements should be able to accommodate 450 dwellings towards the total plan requirement. We consider that the SWLP could take a similar approach to the role that settlements such as Ettington could play, forming part of a network of rural service centres joined by public transport and improvements to other modes of travel including cycling and walking. These settlements could therefore be locations for modest growth complementing their role as rural service centres and carrying forwards the strategy set out in the Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy.
We feel that the use of Brownfield sites should be prioritised and that where Brownfield development is not possible, then development should not occur in Greenbelt land. In particular, we do not feel that the "call for sites" approach sufficiently prioritises the identification of non-greenbelt brownfield or greenfield sites, these should be actively sought out. I feel the consultation document is heavily biased towards development in the greenbelt North of Leamington and this should be avoided, especially when only 1/3 of the plan area is greenbelt. I feel that appropriately planned development from the outset will avoid the need for greenbelt development in "exceptional circumstances". Greenbelt development must be avoided as an absolute priority.
The plan correctly identifies that provision of the correct infrastructure needed to underpin it. It does not set out how all this will be done particularly regarding investment.
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.
We support the identification of Salford Priors in the Settlement Analysis. It is a sustainable location capable of accommodating housing allocations in the SWLP.
Connectivity and accesibility should be a priority consideration when identifying potential settlements, and growth should only be encouraged when connectivity and accessibility are (particularly around Stratford Upon Avon town) in order to minimise the impact on a an already challenged infrastructure and transport system in Startford Upon Avon.
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 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 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
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 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 and Q4.2 19. As part of a sound spatial strategy there will inevitably be a need for growth to occur at existing settlements, including Smaller Settlement Locations and other settlements, which possess a range of local facilities and connectivity by sustainable/active modes of travel to other locations. Such settlements represent the most sustainable locations for growth. 20. Concerns about the settlement analysis and the SA have already been raised and are not repeated. However, it is worth noting that here is a balancing act required whereby some environmental concerns may need to be managed to deliver sustainable growth. Not everything needs to be fully protected provide suitable and appropriate mitigation is available. A finer scale settlement analysis is required than currently undertaken