Q-S4.1: Do you think that growth of some of our existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy?
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
Our comments relate to Radford Semele: The settlement analysis identifies the risk of Radford Semele coalescing with neighbouring urban areas, which is a risk that should be avoided. The settlement analysis also shows that Radford Semele has poor connectivity which also restricts the potential for growth. The settlement analysis also recognises that Radford Semele is not in sufficient proximity to a railway line.
Henley-in-Arden Please see the related "Henley-in-Arden Vision." This sets out how and why Henley-in-Arden provides for sustainable growth; and why the growth of Henley-in-Arden should form part of the overall strategy of the SWLP. Please note re: settlement analysis, the former golf course area is incorrectly labelled as "green infrastructure" - this area relates to a former private golf course and buildings, incorporating brownfield land. Effectively the golf course area provides an important resource for the delivery of sustainable development within 10 minutes of Henley town centre and railway station. As per the Henley-in-Arden Vision, the development of this area of land provides for the creation of new areas for biodiversity, recreation, leisure and green and blue infrastructure, as part of a comprehensive and wholistic approach to sustainable development.
A lack of consideration for the practical realities of developing existing village settlements such as Kingswood (Lapworth). All the residents have cars and the trains are so infrequent as to make rail travel an occasional luxury rather than a viable means of regular transport. The local school is too small and there a no continues footpaths through the village meaning that residents will continue to use cars to access schools and work. Focus should be on better use of already developed land rather than building more greenbelt developments. It is clear that building on green field sites is a cheaper options for developers and easier from a local planning point of view but there are significant areas of brownfield land which should be developed to provide more affordable houses within the areas where people can work. This will ultimately benefit the local area by providing more affordable houses without the need to deliver extra infrastructure (rail roads and busses) and by not destroying the countryside with more developments that can only realistically be accessed by car drivers. Development of our towns should be the priority rather than joining up our villages with development, this is the only option that delivers a sustainable future.
No answer given
The following comments are made in respect of William Davis’s site at Furze Hill Road (site reference 331), which is referenced within Area 2 within the Shipston-on-Stour Area. In respect of Connectivity, Area 2 has been assessed as ‘C’ (barriers may be overcome but not easily) which is equal best. Reference is made to ‘one of the red routes is a narrow lane’. This refers to Furze Hill Road. Access can be provided onto this road, and this route is capable of accommodating all modes of transport. There are therefore no significant barriers to connectivity to the settlement from these areas, and this should be rectified in the next iteration of the Analysis to a score of (A). In respect of Landforms, it is noted there are no physical constraints on Area 2. It is also noted that Area 2 has all local facilities within 800m, save for healthcare and education. Although these are beyond 800m, the distances are not so significant that it would deter residents from walking or cycling. When taking account of this evidence, the comments above in relation to connectivity, it is clear that Area 2 performs well. In summary, this area is the most suitable location to accommodate a strategic allocation, as it is not environmentally constrained and less sensitive in landscape and heritage terms to the locations to the north and east. William Davis therefore request land within Area 2 form a strategic allocation for Shipston-on-Stour.
No answer given
No answer given