Q-S4.1: Do you think that growth of some of our existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy?
Growth at existing settlements across the South Warwickshire Local Plan area should form part of the overall Plan strategy, as this would accord with the differing current pattern of spatial development across the two administrative areas. 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 meet the requirements for growth over the plan period the South Warwickshire Local Plan will need to demonstrate a balance of growth within existing settlements whilst also taking into account the wider constraints of the district area and the need for the provision of infrastructure that larger scale sites may be able to assist in addressing more appropriately. There is greater opportunity to provide and deliver strategic infrastructure within larger scale sites, for example within new settlements, which development within existing settlementsand smaller scale developments cannot feasibly provide.
Bidford-on-Avon is identified as a highly sustainable location, offering its residents a wide range of services and employment as well as access to public transport and other modes of sustainable travel across the settlement and onward to other nearby towns and villages. Bidford-on-Avon is also identified as a small settlement location which provides access by foot and riding to key services which help support strong alignment with the principles of the 20-minute neighbourhood, the settlement being compact and connected with a range of services to meet most people’s needs. It is understood that the 20-minute neighbourhood is a key pillar in 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 them within the South Warwickshire Local Plan. More specifically Bidford-on-Avon is identified at section 3.5 of the Sustainability Appraisal of the emerging South Warwickshire Local Plan as a smaller location which may be able to deliver 50-500 new homes. Given the settlements high degree of sustainability the indicated 500 dwellings should not be treated as a maximum provided it can be demonstrated that additional development aligns with the three overarching sustainability pillars in the NPPF (2021) referenced previously. Similarly the ongoing and well documented housing crisis and drive to significantly boost housing delivery and supply supports this position. Lastly there is no overt or obvious rational or calculation for the proposed upper limit and this should therefore be treated as a guide only. WPDG is promoting land known as Broom Farm forming part of site ref: 562. This site can deliver up to 220 homes. The site adjoins existing residential dwellings comprising established and recently delivered housing development. The site makes a logical infill opportunity benefitting from substantial road frontage and being located with high levels of accessibility to local amenities. A high-quality scheme can be delivered which positively contributes to sustainability objectives to be met through the adoption of the South Warwickshire Local Plan. The allocation of the site can incorporate measures to prevent coalescence of Bidford-on-Avon with nearby Broom. We agree with the connectivity analysis which identifies the site as Connectivity Grade B, the second highest grading and the joint highest available within the settlement. The density analysis for Bidford provides a useful evidence base to inform the preparation of site layouts. The evidence base principles can be incorporated where it would be appropriate to bring forward an ‘Outer Suburb’ form of residential development which is sensitive to the site relative proximity to the settlement boundary. 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 prepared to develop a plan which is justified.
The Sustainability Appraisal omits analysis of a significant number of sustainably located, smaller settlements within the district area, such as Priors Marston, which has a good range of facilities within the village itself and good vehicular access options to nearby larger towns. It is recommended that further work is undertaken prior to the publication of the next iteration of the emerging South Warwickshire Local Plan, to assess the various benefits provided by locating residential development within these Local Service Villages.
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 not assigned a parcel number and so there is no specific connectivity ranking. The site should be assessed as part of the settlement analysis as it has been submitted through the Call for Sites process. The site is not identified as having any landform constraints. The adjacent Persimmon 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 outer suburb densities.
3.20. Shipston-on-Stour is subject to a single assessment for the purposes of the Settlement Design Analysis which forms part of the Council’s evidence. The site is within Parcel 6. It scores a C in terms of accessibility (amber) which is the joint highest score within this analysis area. The land to the north-west of the site is highlighted in terms of its topography, associated with Waddon Hill. It has places to meet, open space, leisure, recreation and wellbeing, healthcare and education within 800m of the site. The density map notes that the site is opposite an industrial area. The site is also adjacent to the leisure centre and school and it is suggested that the map could helpfully be updated to include a recreation/education item in the key.
Q-S4.1: Growth at existing settlements across the Joint Plan area should form a part of the overall Plan strategy, as this would accord with the differing current pattern of spatial development across the two administrative areas. This is so, even when large scale new settlements are proposed to address significant parts of the housing requirement. 3.16. 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. 3.17. In order to develop the most sustainable pattern of development, growth at existing settlements should be in sustainable locations. It is important that appropriate levels of growth are apportioned to existing settlements in order to maintain the vitality and viability of settlements, support new and existing local infrastructure requirements and provide an appropriate mix of housing for the area. 3.18. Bishops Itchington and Harbury are identified within Option 5 however they each benefit from a range of local services and facilities and would contribute towards achieving the Council’s aspiration for 20 minute neighbourhoods. The SA should assess Bishops Itchington and Harbury and proposed development options for the settlements, including this Site. The site, sits directly north of recent residential development by BDW, on a part of the former Harbury Depot site, and would form an extension to it, with the ability to further enhance its sustainability through provision of a convenient small local retail facility and community space, commensurate with the development’s size. 3.19. This Site (Call for Sites ref: 144) is located in a sustainable location, well related to existing development, and the newly created infrastructure from the BDW scheme, it should be positively considered as a location for growth, related to a recognition of the roles that Bishops Itchington and nearby Harbury play as sustainable settlements. Q-S4.2: Bishops Itchington is not included in the settlement analysis. It should be included in this assessment as the evidence base evolves to support the Plan, and in recognition of its size, supporting physical and social infrastructure, and sustainable location, close to the major employment centre (and proposed employment expansion) at Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath.
The local plan is a plan for the whole of the plan area which by definition includes the existing development including settlements of all sizes. This is important because a local plan is for the whole area and new development forms a relatively small proportion of the whole. It is a matter of some concern that that a decision “to maximise the capacity of its existing urban areas in order to meet development needs to 2050” has apparently already been taken. This undermines the consultation by suggesting predetermination of the preferred strategy. The concept of the 20 Minute Neighbourhood (based on a 10 + 10 minute walk there and back) seems rather idealized and not especially effective for a plan area that includes an extensive mix of settlement types across both urban and mainly rural landscapes. There are many smaller settlements and groups of settlements where services could be protected or enhanced through a more dispersed pattern of development and the strategy should allow for a level and distribution of growth that takes account of this. The Connectivity Analysis and Density Analysis have produced a significant amount of information but the extent to which these can help to inform the strategy in the plan is less clear. The landform analysis is clearly helpful in helping demonstrate land where new development should generally be avoided.
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.
Henley in Arden apparently has a projected 500-2000 homes in the SWLP. This growth is very much out of proportion with the existing size of the local population. Henley is certainly unsuitable for growth over 500 houses due to flood risk, poor infrastructure (sewage and drainage at capacity, schools and GP services full, congested road, scanty train and bus services) additionally Henley has already far exceeded the projected settlement growth planned up to 2031 in the Henley Neighbourhood Plan. More information needs to be collated to inform the SWLP how much additional housing Henley could reasonably absorb, with or without improvements in infrastructure
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 be minimised and fairly spread, his development seem vastly out of proportion with the sizes of Weston and Hunningham
The local plan is a plan for the whole of the plan area which by definition includes the existing development including settlements of all sizes. This is important because a local plan is for the whole area and new development forms a relatively small proportion of the whole. It is a matter of some concern that that a decision “to maximise the capacity of its existing urban areas in order to meet development needs to 2050” has apparently already been taken. This undermines the consultation by suggesting predetermination of the preferred strategy. The concept of the 20 Minute Neighbourhood (based on a 10 + 10 minute walk there and back) seems rather idealized and not especially effective for a plan area that includes an extensive mix of settlement types across both urban and mainly rural landscapes. There are many smaller settlements and groups of settlements where services could be protected or enhanced through a more dispersed pattern of development and the strategy should allow for a level and distribution of growth that takes account of this. The Connectivity Analysis and Density Analysis have produced a significant amount of information but the extent to which these can help to inform the strategy in the plan is less clear. The landform analysis is clearly helpful in helping demonstrate land where new development should generally be avoided.
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.
The Site falls within Stratford Northwest for the purposes of the Settlement Design Analysis which forms part of the Council’s evidence. The site is within Parcel 1. It scores a B in terms of accessibility (green) which is the joint highest score within this analysis area. It is note identified as having any landform constraints. It has retail, jobs, economy, places to meet and open space, leisure, recreation and wellbeing within 800m of the site. The density map does not reflect the existing residential development to the south of this Site. The plan should be updated to include this.
Q-S4.1 Growth of Existing Settlements The expansion of existing brownbelt development should be considered favourably over new greenbelt development as it would provide a natural progression of village to town to city expansion. Providing existing brown sites with new and improved infrastructure would serve more populace and therefore be of more value.
The omission of Bishop’s Itching from the Settlement Analysis is a significant error. Settlement Analysis evidence report advises that the settlements identified for “initial” assessment are those that fall within the first and second tier settlements within the Stratford-upon-Avon Core Strategy (main towns and main rural centres) and the Urban Areas and Growth Villages in the Warwick District Local Plan. The assessed settlements must also be relevant to one or more of the growth scenarios identified in the Scoping consultation SWLP. In addition, a series of other settlements have been assessed on the basis that they are relevant to the rail corridor Growth Strategy. Bishop’s Itchington is one of 5 settlements identified as a Category 1 Village by the adopted Stratford-upon-Avon Core Strategy. As a Local Service Village it falls within the third tier of the settlement hierarchy and has not been assessed. However, it is clear that Bishop’s Itchington is a sustainable location for development. Bishop’s Itchington has a population in excess of 2,000 people according to the 2011 Census. During the course of the last 10 years it has been identified as an appropriate location for development in excess of 390 dwellings. The emerging Stratford-upon-Avon Site Allocations Plan has previously identified the settlement as an appropriate location for the inclusion of Reserve Housing Sites that can be brought forward for development in order to help ensure the Council has a 5 year housing land supply. Bishops Itchington has a series of services and facilities including: • Bishops Itchington Primary School; • Community Centre; • Doctors Surgery; • Public Houses; • Village Store; • Cooperative Food Store; • Various children’s play areas and a park; and • Variety of bus stops with connections to higher order settlements. It benefits from being approximately 1.6km from junction 12 of the M40, and 2.2km from Southam, that provides a variety of services and facilities including a Tesco superstore and Southam College. It is, therefore, a clearly sustainable location for development. In our view, Bishops Itchington could play a number of roles in the growth scenario including the Scoping version of the Plan. It could perform well under Growth Scenario G – Dispersed Growth, as it is a rural settlement with a variety of services and facilities. It could also play a role under Growth Scenarios B – Bus Corridor and C – Road Corridor, given its bus and road connectivity. We are concerned that Bishop’s Itchington omission from the Settlement Analysis could be of detriment to it receiving an adequate quantum of development through the plan making process. It is our view that the Preferred Options version of the plan should make new allocations at Bishop’s Itchington.
The inclusion of Bearley in the Settlement Analysis is appropriate. The land to the east and west of the Birmingham Road and south of Snitterfield Road, at Bearley is identified as having connectivity grade “C” by the Settlement Analysis. There is no explanation why this conclusion has been reached. The site is in close proximity to the existing residential properties at Bearley and is located adjacent to a railway station. BDW’s proposals in this location would result in a number of connectivity improvements between the existing village and Bearley Station. This includes improving pedestrian access under the rail bridge on the A3400 Birmingham Road, the provision of additional car parking and new public footpath connections across the site. The Local Facilities Assessment within the Settlement Analysis, advises that there is just a single place to meet, one area of open space, leisure, recreation and wellbeing, within Bearley. Bearley has a village hall, sports and social club, playgrounds, a church and a train station. BDW’s proposals at Bearley will significantly improve the services that are available within this village. Alongside new housing, provision will be made for a primary school and employment opportunities and improved access to the station including the provision of a car park for train passengers in order to increase use of the station. The development proposal will turn Bearley into a significantly more sustainable village, with a variety of new services and facilities, meaning that there is less likelihood that its residents will need to commute elsewhere. For example, as there is no school within the village; all pupils must commute to nearby towns and villages for their education. This matter would be resolved through the creation of a new primary school on site. Since the Settlement Analysis does not factor in development proposals, it does not fully consider the ability and suitability of Bearley to accommodate additional sustainable development.
The inclusion of Wilmcote in the Settlement Analysis is appropriate. The Wilmcote Settlement Analysis suggest that the land to the east of the railway and the south of Featherbed Lane, has connectivity grade “C”. This is due to the fact that the railway line acts as a barrier into Wilmcote. It is suggested that this is not likely to be “too big of a problem” if this area is subject to small scale development, however, any proposals for a large scale development in this location would be problematic as there is only one point of connection into Wilmcote. This assertion is incorrect. BDW are proposing a large scale mixed use development at this location. This will include upgraded connection to the railway station and Wilmcote generally by improving the Featherbed Lane/Birmingham Road junction. This will create an improved access to the train station from Birmingham Road through the site and would include the provision of a P&R style car park adjacent to the station. In addition, the proposed scheme will deliver a new school, employment opportunities and a variety of services and facilities alongside significant areas of open space and will be sustainable in its own right. Indeed, the nature of the development proposed will greatly enhance the sustainability of Wilmcote generally making it a more complete settlement in terms of services and facilities. The Local Facilities Assessment within the Settlement Analysis identifies a relatively limited number of services and facilities within the vicinity of Wilmcote which would be greatly enhanced by the services and facilities being provided by BDW as a part of their development proposals. It would result in the provision of a new school, employment opportunities, places to meet and large areas of public open space and leisure areas. This provision will be of benefit not only to the residents of the proposed scheme, but the residents of Wilmcote generally. The proposal will result in new car parking for Wilmcote station. BDW are discussions with Network Rail and West Midlands Trains who would welcome the provision of a station car park for train passengers in order to increase footfall at the station.
The Parish Council considers the document identifies that provision of the correct infrastructure must underpin this plan. The plan identifies the importance of effective communications, especially transport. The provision of adequate utility and Internet services is also deemed essential, as are the public services of health, education and welfare. There is nowhere in the document that outlines the way improvements in all of these things are to be undertaken. There is no indication that the authorities will be approaching the statutory providers and the private sector involved in public services to ensure that they will guarantee the investment necessary. This is essential for any settlement.
No answer given
Q-S4.1: Yes - this seems to be a sustainable approach, building on existing infrastructure provision rather than starting from scratch.
We do not believe in extending existing settlements and strongly favour a strategy of creating new settlements alongside adequate infrastructure.
We support the growth of some of our existing settlements, as long as the proposed development land complies with the principles of the “20-minute neighbourhood “. If existing settlements do not yet have facilities, we support the extension of them as long as new facilities are provided which follow the principles of the “20-minute neighbourhood “ and do not have a significant impact on the area’s landscape character. It is essential that these new facilities are completed before other development takes place. When planning the growth of existing settlements it is important to ensure an engagement of existing local residents in the design process. Presenting an architect’s plan as a fait accompli is not the way forward. Consideration should be give to the use of a process using a ‘Design Charette’ or ‘Enquiry by Design’ both of which are planning tools that bring together key stakeholders to collaborate on a vision for a new community.
Q-S4.1: Yes, Taylor Wimpey agrees with the statement made in the Issues & Options that: “… 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, potentially alongside and in combination with other options such as new settlements” 3.3 The growth of some existing settlements offers the realistic prospect of meeting local housing needs and achieving the delivery of sustainable development. Hampton Magna is such an existing settlement that is capable of accommodating housing growth over the plan period. This is evident by Hampton Magna (in combination with Warwick Parkway) being identified as a potential existing settlement for growth within each growth option. 3.4 This assertion is based on a review of the existing evidence base supporting the Issue & Options, which concludes the following for Hampton Magna: Bus Accessibility Mapping 3.5 It is between a 0-15 minute bus travel time of major towns, employment centres, GPs, dentists and pharmacies and secondary schools and colleges, and is between a 15-30 minute bus travel time of major and minor towns and hospitals Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Issues and Options Stage (November 2022) 3.6 It is identified as a Small Settlement Location (SSL) for intermediate scale where housing development of between 50 and 500 homes in any one location can be brought forward using the principles of the 20-minute neighbourhood concept. 3.7 It is the highest scoring SSL, with minor positive impact scores against SA2 Flood Risk and major positive impact scores against SA9 Housing and SA11 Accessibility. The settlement either performs equal to or better than other existing settlements for every other objective. This is exemplified in Table 5.1 of the SA Issues & Options, which is set out below (red outline our emphasis): Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (July 2021) is clear that local plans should be “informed” by a sustainability appraisal to document how the SWLP (in this instance) has addressed relevant economic, social and environmental objectives. 3.9 Therefore, as Hampton Magna is the best performing existing settlement in sustainability terms (i.e. it limits the most significant adverse impacts on the objectives via being avoided, reduced or eliminated), a suitable amount of housing growth should be directed to the settlement up to 2050. Settlement Design Analysis (January 2023) 3.10 It is does not have any significant barriers to connectivity which would be difficult or impossible to overcome and all ‘edges’ can at least connect to: green route, loops or cul-de-sacs only, with limited or no potential to connect these into new red route; and limited or no potential active links e.g. via green / blue infrastructure or other active links. The eastern edges of the settlement are flat without Flood Zone 2 and 3 or green infrastructure constraints. Therefore, there are no significant gradients that have the potential to impact on the ability and/or likelihood of using active modes of travel for some trips nor are there areas at risk of flooding which have the potential to impact movement and route options. 3.12 It has all required local facilities within 800m walking distance including those relating to retail, jobs and economy; places to meet; open space, leisure, recreation – wellbeing; healthcare; education. 3.13 Its existing density is characterised as ‘outer suburbs’ providing between 20 and 40 dwellings per hectare with few apartments and a less varied mix of land uses. Question 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 3.14 The settlement analysis does not consider the full extent of Hampton Magna. It currently excludes the committed and now under construction allocations H51 and H27 in the adopted Warwick Local Plan (September 2017). 3.15 Each allocation is subject to approved detailed site layouts, so there is sufficient information in the public domain to analyse how the new residential development to the east and south of Hampton Magna contributes to and supports improvements to connectivity, accessibility and density in Hampton Magna. 3.16 Paragraph 31 of the NPPF states the preparation of all policies should be underpinned by relevant and up-to-date evidence. It is in this context, that the approved detailed site layout information for adopted allocations H51 and H27 should be considered in the plan-making process to ensure a sustainable pattern of housing growth is achieved at Hampton Magna. 3.17 Finally, and separately, Table 1 of the settlement analysis identifies Hampton Magna in silo and only in a ‘dispersed’ growth scenario. This is inconsistent with the identification and assessment of Hampton Magna in combination with Warwick Parkway in the Issues & Options. It is recommended Hampton Magna is coupled with Warwick Parkway as in combination the location performs well in each spatial growth option – as documented in the Issues & Options.
Q-S4.1 Growth at existing settlements is crucial to ensure their long-term sustainability, vitality and viability of local services such as shops, public houses and sports clubs. This includes settlements of all sizes, whilst also considering accessibility to other nearby service centres, for higher order services and employment opportunities. Q-S4.2 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 In addition, Warwick’s adopted Local Plan sets out a number of Growth Villages 2 , including Leek Wootton. However, the Settlement Analysis that has occurred includes a number of those identified Growth Villages within the Local Plan, including Barford, Bishop’s Tachbrook, Hampton Magna, Hatton Park, Kingswood and Radford Semele, but hasn’t included Leek Wootton. Therefore, it is unclear how the Councils have deciphered this list of smaller settlements within the Settlement Analysis and is not consistent with the approach of the existing Local Plan. 3.19 Furthermore, the analysis states that this was not run alongside the Call For Sites Submissions, therefore Caddick Land 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. 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. From Caddick Land’s perspective, this needs to occur to ensure the spatial strategy is reflective of South Warwickshire as an entity, and to achieve sustainable development across the whole area.