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
Q-S4.2:Comments regarding settlement analysis • The Settlement Design Analysis relies heavily on a series of maps which use different colours to categorise land use and suitability. For those who have defective colour vision (at least 10% of men), these maps are very difficult to interpret. However, the Criteria for assessing edges as shown in Table 5 is reasonable. The criteria listed throughout the Analysis appear well defined and pertinent; it is the interpretation in respect of individual areas which is suspect. • These comments refer specifically to the Kenilworth South area. • Table 6 uses a crude 800 metre circle drawn with a compass as the definition of the 20 minute rule. It is acknowledged that this ignores the actual walking distance using streets and footpaths, which, we would contend, results in a significant understatement of the real walking time in almost all cases. In the case of area 18 (south west of Rounds Hill) the limited direct access to Rounds Hill/John O’Gaunt Road will make any walks much longer. This does not seem to have been taken into account in respect of this specific area. Should this change the category from C to D? • Once again, none of the maps or analysis seems to take into account the existing new developments around Kenilworth. Nor do they show HS2 and its surrounding area. At the very least these should be shown on the density analysis, since the information is contained within the last plan. There seems to be no reason for this exclusion, unless it is to give the impression that Kenilworth is much smaller than it will be.
No answer given
The settlement analysis really does need to take account of active housing developments in order to provide a more up-to-date picture of what is already happening within local settlements. I'm particularly thinking of Kenilworth that has several sites allocated in the made Neighbourhood Plan.
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
Yes, growth of existing settlements in South Warwickshire is imperative to deliver the overall growth targets, and achieve the Vision and overarching principles. The need for housing, affordable and specialist housing, green infrastructure, improved facilities and infrastructure is within the towns and villages. Those needs are best met sustainably adjacent to the settlements. The following comments are made in respect of Rosconn Strategic Land Site west of Marton Road, Long Itchington (site 478) which falls in part within Area 9, and in part within an area defined as significant public green space. The inclusion of this land in an area of green space is incorrect as the land controlled by Rosconn Strategic Land isn’t publically available and not used as green space. The boundary of Area 9 and the significant public green space should be amended in the next iteration of the Analysis. The connectivity analysis states that Area 9 is graded as ‘C’, defined as with barriers that may be overcome. The commentary states that this location has a ‘fairly busy road access’. Development on Marton Road has been found acceptable in highway terms, such as Bishop Drive, and an access can be provided onto Marton Road from Area 9. The Development Framework Plan that has been prepared to illustrate development proposals for land west of Marton Road includes a proposed access close to the Bishop Drive scheme. Land west of Marton Road should therefore be graded ‘B’. In respect of landform, as noted above, site 478 is not green infrastructure and not public green space. The boundary of this designation should be amended in the next iteration of the Analysis. It is noted that growth to the north of the village is supported in flood risk policy terms, with the area being sequentially preferable to land to the west. In respect of local facilities within 800m, Area 9 scores well with the site scoring 3 out of 5, only marked down for healthcare (due to no facilities within the village at present) and being just outside of the 800m distance to the primary school. Areas 14 and 15 have been scored as 5 out of 5, however these areas appear to have been incorrectly scored as they are not within 800m of healthcare facilities either. The analysis should therefore be updated to reflect this. Area 9 is therefore considered a suitable location to accommodate development as there are no barriers to connectivity to the village, and the site is within 800m (or just over 800m) of a good range of local facilities. It is noted that Stratford-on-Avon District Council scored the site (LONG.17) negatively within the SHLAA 2021 update. The assessment concluded that the site formed part of an important undeveloped gap to west of the main road, with a mature hedgerow which would have to be removed to achieve an access which could not be mitigated effectively. However, planning permission was granted on 3rd March 2004 for a new 5m gateway access into the field adjacent to playing fields, Marton Road (Ref:03/04009/FUL). The permission was implemented and remains in situ. The accompanying Development Framework Plan also demonstrates how the natural features on site can be retained and that the mature hedgerow along the eastern boundary will not need to be removed to allow for access. In addition, the recreational ground known as ‘Lilac Field’ to the south of the site would remain and therefore provide an undeveloped gap between dwellings on Green End and proposed dwellings on land west of Marton Road. The accompanying Development Framework Plan for land west of Marton Road demonstrates how the built form will be split between the two parcels of land, respecting the settlement pattern to the north of the site. The built form will not extend beyond the existing build line with public open space and landscaping features within the remaining sections of the site. The existing trees along the western boundary and woodland areas within the northern parcel will be retained and incorporated into the development. Furthermore, the development has the potential to deliver additional planting along the northern and western boundaries to form a positive edge to the site. It is therefore considered that the site is capable of accommodating an appropriately designed residential development set within a robust GI framework as presented in the accompanying Development Framework Plan. Paragraph 141 of the NPPF states that before changes are made to Green Belt boundaries, the LPA will need to demonstrate that they have considered all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development. LPA’s must therefore demonstrate that they have made use of suitable and underutilised land before Green Belt land is released. Land west of Marton Road, Long Itchington, should therefore be given priority as this land is outside of the Green Belt and is considered to be a deliverable site to help deliver homes within the plan period.
No answer given
No answer given
Yes, growth of existing settlements in South Warwickshire is imperative to deliver the overall growth targets, and achieve the Vision and overarching principles. The need for housing, affordable and specialist housing, green infrastructure, improved facilities and infrastructure is within the towns and villages. Those needs are best met sustainably adjacent to the settlements. The following comments are made in respect of Rosconn Strategic Land Site at Manor Farm, Long Itchington (467) which falls within Area 12. Area 12 is given a ‘C’ grade in terms of connectivity, defined as with barriers that may be overcome. The commentary in the Analysis states that Collingham Lane narrows to a single track after first sharp bend. This bend is beyond the edge of the village and would not be a barrier to development within Area 12. Reference is also made to the school playing fields to the south, but these are not a barrier to connectivity to the village. The accompanying Development Framework Plan illustrates how a suitable access can be provided to this site from Collingham Lane. As Collingham Lane, is capable of accommodating all modes of transport, there are no barriers to connectivity to the settlement and this should be rectified in the next iteration of the Analysis to a score of (A). In the analysis of landform, there are no constraints, unlike the majority of the western side of Long Itchington which is covered by a flood plain. Therefore growth to the north of the village is supported in flood risk policy terms, with the area being sequentially preferable. In respect of local facilities within 800m, Area 12 scores very well with the site scoring 4 out of 5, only marked down for healthcare due to no facilities within the village at present. Areas 14 and 15 have been scored as 5 out of 5, however these sites appear to have been incorrectly scored as they are not within 800m of healthcare facilities either. The analysis should therefore be updated to reflect this. Area 12 is therefore considered a suitable location to accommodate development as there are no barriers to connectivity to the village, and the site is within 800m of a good range of local facilities. It is noted that Stratford-on-Avon District Council scored the site (LONG.06) negatively within the SHLAA 2021 update. The assessment concluded that access through the existing housing development to the south would not be suitable according to the Highway Authority. However, Rosconn Strategic Land have undertook their own assessment which concludes that access can be provided from Collingham Lane. The supporting Transport Note from Savoy Consulting states that a satisfactory means of access can be provided for the development, and all potential capacity issues on the local highway network can be addressed through the installation of traffic signals at the A423 Southam Road/Stockton Road junction. The SHLAA update 2021 also noted that the site forms part of an extensive open landscape to the north of the village which cannot be mitigated effectively. However FPCR have prepared a Landscape Statement which demonstrates that the site is well contained, relates well to the existing settlement, and is not particularly sensitive in landscape and visual terms. It is well contained by the existing settlement to the south and west including the recent residential development off Stockton Road, Long Itchington Primary School and properties off Collingham Lane. The boundary between the site and existing development is generally defined by a combination of hedgerows and trees. Established vegetation along the site’s boundary to the north and east helps visually contain the site. The Landscape Statement concludes the site is capable of accepting residential development reflective of the scale and size that exists within the settlement. The supporting Development Framework Plan shows how development of the site could be brought forward in a way which respects the local context. This demonstrates the retention and reinforcement of existing landscape features alongside additional planting to the site’s boundaries which will help to further visually contain the site. Retention of the existing field boundary within the site will maintain the existing field pattern. The Development Framework Plan also shows the potential developable area set back from the north east of the site relating to the existing settlement pattern. The positioning of the proposed Public Open Space (POS) would ensure a strong buffer between any future development on this site and the wider countryside to the north and east. In addition, the Development Framework Plan also demonstrates the location of a potential Habitat Creation Area (3.06ha). This land is within the landowner’s ownership which can be provided to deliver biodiversity enhancement as part of this scheme. The scheme can also provide further benefits with 0.8 ha of land available for a potential expansion to the existing Primary School. Paragraph 141 of the NPPF states that before changes are made to Green Belt boundaries, the LPA will need to demonstrate that they have considered all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development. LPA’s must therefore demonstrate that they have made use of suitable and underutilised land before Green Belt land is released. Land east of Manor Farm, Long Itchington, should therefore be given priority as this land is outside of the Green Belt and is considered to be a deliverable site to help deliver homes within the plan period.
My response to the above is NO because I do not believe that Green Belt land should be built on to grow existing settlements. Growth should be achieved first through brownfield development. Development should be based on a realistic housing needs figure and the Local Plan should recognise that Green Belt land does not have to be built on if that is the only way of achieving this figure.
No answer given
Yes, growth of existing settlements in South Warwickshire is imperative to deliver the overall growth targets, and achieve the Vision and overarching principles. The need for housing, affordable and specialist housing, green infrastructure, improved facilities and infrastructure is within the towns and villages. Those needs are best met sustainably adjacent to the settlements. The following comments are made in respect of the site promoted by Rosconn Strategic Land east of Coventry Road, Cubbington (Site 176). The site has not been assessed within the Settlement Analysis, and this should be rectified in the next iteration of the Analysis. An assessment has been undertaken of the site to assist in this process. In relation to connectivity, Site 176 can access onto Coventry Road (red route) which connects directly into the settlement and can accommodate all modes of transport. There are no barriers to connectivity, and therefore the site should be assessed as (A). In relation to landform, there are no flood or green infrastructure constraints on the site. In relation to local facilities within 800m, the adjacent Area 13 scores 4 out of 5 with only healthcare being outside of the 800m distance. The same score would apply to Site 176 as the local surgery is beyond 800m. However, it would still be one of the best performing areas. Overall, Site 176 is therefore considered a suitable location to accommodate development as there are no barriers to connectivity to the village, no constraints, and the site is within 800m of a good range of local facilities.