Q-S4.1: Do you think that growth of some of our existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy?
South of Coventry The need for additional housing in South Warwickshire to cover the unmet demands of Coventry needs to be re-assessed in the light of the agreed long term errors in assessment of the population of Coventry. This has been recognised at the highest levels, but not yet implemented, though the HEDNA included in this SWLP assessment recognises the fact and proposes one solution to the issue. Once built, the Green Belt land that is lost cannot be recovered.
Although Fenny Compton is not listed in table 2, several potential sites were submitted in the first call for sites which would double or triple the size of the village and completely change its character. The Compton Locks development will increase the size of the village by 30%, without any additional infrastructure. These additional sites would be completely unsustainable in terms of recreational facilities, roads, primary healthcare to name but a few.
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 to the rear of Oakdene Crescent, Hatton Station. The site (reference 168) falls between the existing settlement and Area 7. It is not clear why Area 7 has been drawn to exclude this small parcel, however this should be rectified in the next iteration of the SA. An assessment has been undertaken of the site to assist in this process. In relation to connectivity, Site 168 can access onto Oakdene Crescent (blue 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 7 scores 2 out of 5 with open space, healthcare and education being outside of the 800m distance. The same score would apply to Site 168 as these facilities are beyond 800m. However, it would still be one of the best performing areas. Overall, Site 168 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 local facilities, including the railway station.
Connectivity and Accessibility should be a high priority consideration when anaylsing settlements and growth should only be encouraged when connectivity and accessibility are high (around Stratford Upon Avon Town) in order to minimise the impact on a an already challenged infrastructure and transport system in Stratford Upon Avon.
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 village of Stockton has not been included within the Settlement Analysis evidence supporting the South Warwickshire Local Plan. In the absence of any analysis, the following comments are therefore made in support of growth at Stockton. In terms of context, the site is located on the western edge of the village. There is agricultural land to the north, west and south. The eastern boundary adjoins residential development associated with the existing village. The village of Stockton is identified as a Category 2 Local Service Village in the Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy 2011-2031. Stockton is therefore one of ten villages within this status. The Core Strategy describes the village of Stockton as ‘sizeable’ and refer to its relationship with the market town of Southam, which lies circa 2.2km to the south west of the site. The village itself has a Primary School, Public House, Church, Convenience Store, and Takeaway, as well as sports facilities. The bus stops in the village provide regular services between Leamington Spa and Rugby, which also stops at Southam. The site lies within Flood Zone 1, which is the lowest possible risk of flooding. There are no constraints in terms of flood risk. DEFRA maps indicate the agricultural land classification is Grade 3, which means that it falls outside the definition of best and most versatile agricultural land. The site is located outside of the designated Green Belt. There are no special landscape designations affecting the site and no environmental constraints. The site does not lie within or adjacent to a Conservation Area and there would be no impact on the settings of any listed buildings. The nearest listed buildings are circa 400m to the east, with existing development in between. When taking account of the information above, land west of Tuckwell Close is considered a suitable location to accommodate a modest scale of development at Stockton commensurate with its size. 2Paragraph 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 Tuckwell Close, Stockton 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
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
The following comments are made in respect of HLM’s site, which is referenced as Area 4 within the Southam Area. In respect of Connectivity, it is noted reference is made to the A423 as a barrier to the western edge. This is acknowledged however there are several points at which crossings can be safely made for pedestrians and cyclists. Firstly, the existing underpass which serves the Flying Fields development to the north of Area 4. This underpass provides a safe, secure, and direct route for pedestrians and cyclists into the town centre from Welsh Road East. The HLM site can access the underpass via Welsh Road East. Secondly, there is an existing public right of way for pedestrians that runs through the middle of Area 4 before crossing the A423 at grade and then connecting onto Stowe Drive and then along residential streets towards the town centre. This route can be improved through the provision of a controlled toucan crossing. Thirdly, there is an existing bridleway that runs through Area 4 and connects to an existing traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing adjacent to the junction with the A425. This route provides a safe and direct route to the Banbury Road and Sustrans National Cycle Route 48 which connects to the town centre and employment areas. Finally, there is the ability to connect with and across Banbury Road to the south of the A423/A425 junction to provide an alternative means of accessing the town from the southern end of Area 4. It is therefore considered that active and sustainable modes of travel from Area 4 to the town can be made across the A423 at four separate crossing points, and that connectivity is not a barrier that would prevent the area from being a strategic allocation. Further, enhanced connectivity between Southam Southeast and the main town will benefit existing residents east of the A423. In respect of Landforms, it is noted there are no physical constraints on Area 4. It is also noted that Area 4 has all local facilities within 800m. When taking account of this evidence, the comments above in relation to connectivity, and the evidence of the SA, it is clear that Area 4 performs best. This area is the most suitable location to accommodate a broad location of up to 2,000 dwellings, as it is the least environmentally constrained and yet the most accessible to the town and its facilities.
No answer given
The following comments are made in respect of William Davis’s site at Holt Farm (site reference 332), which is referenced as Areas 5 and 6 within the Studley Area. In respect of Connectivity, Area 5 has been assessed as ‘B’ (barriers are negligible and easily overcome) and Area 6 has been assessed as ‘C’ (barriers may be overcome but not easily). For both areas, reference is made to ‘busy route on western edge’. This refers to the A435 which runs through the middle of Studley. Access can be provided onto the A435, and this route is capable of accommodating all modes of transport. Significant residential development and local facilities already exist on the same side of the A435 as these two areas, and therefore the A435 is not a barrier to facilities. 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). Reference is made to floodplain and sewage works to the east, however this is not a constraint on connectivity. In respect of Landforms, it is noted there are no physical constraints on Areas 5 and 6. It is also noted that Area 5 has all five local facilities within 800m. Area 6 is deficient only in respect of healthcare, however Pool Medical Centre is within 800m of Area 6 and this should be rectified in the next iteration of the Analysis. When taking account of this evidence, the comments above in relation to connectivity, it is clear that Areas 5 and 6 perform best. Comments are also made here in respect of the Heritage Assessment for Studley. This finds that land to south-east of Studley has potential for development in recognition of the lack of historic environment constraints. It is recognised that the north-east of the village is considered to be effectively undevelopable from a historic environment perspective. The relationship between development to the south east of Studley, and the heritage assets further north has been carefully considered by William Davis through its own masterplanning exercise. It is possible to avoid harm to the setting of the assets through the location of development, landscaping, and detailed design. In fact, the ability to provide areas of public open space (possible Country Park) within this area creates an opportunity to enable a greater appreciation of the significance of the setting of the assets to the north. William Davis and its consultants would therefore be very happy to discuss its work with the Councils to demonstrate how heritage assets to the north can be protected. It is also noted the Councils are to undertake a review of the Green Belt to assess whether there are areas which no longer meet all five of the Green Belt purposes and could be removed. It is important that any assessment also has regard to paragraph 142 of the NPPF, and the need to give first consideration to previously developed land and/or land well served by public transport, and also to take into consideration the ability to offset any removal through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land. Studley is well served by public transport connections into Redditch and other settlements, and this should be recognised in the review. Moreover, William Davis have demonstrated in its proposal for Holt Farm (site 332) that there is extensive areas of land available for compensatory improvements in terms of public access and environmental quality within a potential new Country Park. In summary, this area is the most suitable location to accommodate a strategic allocation, as it is not environmentally constrained and yet the most accessible to the village and its facilities. Areas 5 and 6 have advantage over areas 8 and 9 (to the south of Studley) in terms of proximity to the village services, but also in terms of connectivity as residents of areas 8 and 9 would have to cross a main road (the A448) to access the village. Further, as there is no development south of the A448 in areas 8 and 9, this would be breaching for the first time a significant edge to the village and increasing the risk of coalescence with Sambourne. William Davis therefore request land within the Areas 5 and 6 form a strategic allocation for Studley.
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 village of Halford has not been included within the Settlement Analysis evidence supporting the South Warwickshire Local Plan. In the absence of any analysis, the following comments are therefore made in support of growth at Halford. Land north of Idlicote Road, Halford is allocated for self-build and/or custom-build housing under Proposal SCB.4: North of Idlicote Road, Halford in the Site Allocations Plan Revised Preferred Options Consultation (June 2022). The site was also identified as a site that is likely to be deliverable in the SHLAA (2021) under reference HALF.03. The SHLAA stated that the site is well related to physical form of the village and development can be effectively mitigated including the retention of mature trees. In terms of the site context, the southern boundary of the site fronts onto Idlicote Road, with dwellings situated on the opposite side of the road. To the west of the site is existing residential development at ‘The Close’ which is a cul-de-sac of 21 dwellings. The north and eastern boundaries of the site adjoin agricultural land, with three existing dwellings situated along the frontage of Idlicote Road. The north and eastern boundaries also form the proposed built up area boundary in the draft Site Allocations Plan (SAP). In the adopted Core Strategy for Stratford-on-Avon, Halford is defined as a Category 4 Local Service Village and is therefore considered a suitable location for development. The site lies within Flood Zone 1, which is the lowest possible risk of flooding and is suitable for development. The site falls within the Stour Valley Landscape Character Area, and there are no special landscape designations in this area that could impact the site. The site does not lie within or adjacent to a conservation area and there would be no impact on the settings of any listed buildings. When taking account of the information above, land north of Idlicote Road is considered a suitable location to accommodate small scale development within the village of Halford. 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 north of Idllicote Road, Halford, 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
The following comments are made in respect of HLM’s Site, which is referenced as falling within part of Area 8 within the Kenilworth North area. In respect of Connectivity, the Area has been assessed as ‘C’, however this is disputed given the interrelationship of the Area with Coventry Road which is a primary street and has bus stops which provide frequent access to Coventry, Leamington Spa and Warwick. The Area also has proximity to the Kenilworth Greenway. References to flood plain and the railway line are noted, but these do not impact on connectivity with the settlement. There are therefore no significant barriers to connectivity. With regard to Landforms, it is noted there are no physical constraints on Area 8 save for Flood Zones 2 and 3 to the north which can be suitably mitigated. It is recognised that Kenilworth has a number of landform constraints, notably Green Infrastructure, which limits development potential elsewhere. In respect of local facilities within 800m, it is noted that the report highlights the absence of Places to Meet, Healthcare and Education for Area 8. However, the distances are not significantly greater than 800m and the Area is well served by public transport. When taking account of the evidence above, Area 8 as illustrated within the illustrative masterplan submitted with these representations is considered to be a suitable location to accommodate a strategic allocation, as there are no barriers to connectivity to the town and generally most facilities are available within 800m.
The following comments are made in respect of HLM’s site reference 103, which is referenced as Area 7 and 8 within the South of Coventry Area. In respect of Connectivity, it is noted the only barriers listed are the railway between Areas 7 and 8, and HS2 to the south. The Transport Authorities for the area have consulted on a new A46 Strategic Link Road within the HLM site that would provide a new crossing over the railway. Connectivity across the railway can be overcome and is envisaged by the Transport Authorities. HS2 to the south is not a barrier to connectivity to the South of Coventry, and therefore not considered relevant. Importantly, there are no barriers between the site 103 and the urban area of South Coventry. In respect of Landforms, no account is taken in the assessment of the planned services at Kings Hill SUE. Unless there is evidence this development which has planning permission is not to be delivered, then it should be taken into consideration when assessing sites otherwise opportunities will be missed to locate development near to planned infrastructure and facilities. Paragraph 73. a) requires Councils to consider the opportunities presented by existing or planned investment in infrastructure when deciding the location of new development. The assessment should therefore be amended to take into account the planned facilities at Kings Hill SUE. A comment is made in the Connectivity Section that the area would erode the separation between Coventry and Kenilworth at its narrowest point. This comment does not appear to be relevant to the Connectivity Assessment, and in any event is inaccurate as the narrowest point would not be eroded. It is noted the Councils are to undertake a review of the Green Belt to assess whether there are areas which no longer meet all five of the Green Belt purposes and could be removed. HLM have submitted with these representations an assessment of its site against the five purposes of the Green Belt, and it is requested this is taken into account when the Councils undertake their assessment. In summary, the extent to which site 103 contributes to the purposes of the Green Belt and preventing neighbouring towns merging is diminished by the construction of HS2, the planned construction of the A46 Strategic Link Road, and the planned woodland belt that will be planted along these two infrastructure corridors. These works will create a sizeable and strong defensible boundary between the settlements of Coventry and Kenilworth, and the narrowest part of the gap between the two will not be eroded as illustrated within the assessment provided by HLM. It is important also that any assessment has regard to paragraph 142 of the NPPF, and the need to give first consideration to previously developed land and/or land well served by public transport, and also to take into consideration the ability to offset any removal through compensatory improvements to the environmental quality and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land. HLM’s proposals as illustrated within the Vision Document for site 104 show how compensatory improvements are proposed to the environmental quality of land north of Kenilworth in the form of flood mitigation and ecological enhancement works. The Councils will be aware of the Transport Authorities plans to provide a new rail station/public transport interchange within the HLM site, that is to be connected by Very Light Rail to Coventry running through the site. When completed, this site will be one of the best served sites in South Warwickshire for public transport.
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
The following comments are made in respect of Richborough Estates site (199), which is referenced as the western part of Area 17 within the Kenilworth South area. In respect of Connectivity, the site has been assessed as ‘B’. This is second to only Area 4 which has been assessed as ‘A’, although it is noted this area is separated from the town by the A452. The land to the north of Area 17 is allocated for residential development within the adopted Local Plan. The site has yet to come forward, and therefore the potential exists for the Council to secure active and sustainable linkages through this site from Area 17. The delivery of these linkages would further enhance the connectivity of this location, and the Council should take the opportunity to secure such links. In respect of Landforms, it is noted there are no physical constraints on Area 17 save for green infrastructure (allotments) which would be retained. In respect of local facilities within 800m, it is noted that the report highlights the absence of Healthcare and Places to Meet for Area 17. However, such facilities could be provided within a broad location in this area if it was necessary as part of the development. When taking account of the evidence above, Area 17 is a suitable location to accommodate a strategic allocation, as there are no barriers to connectivity to the town and facilities are available within 800m.
The following comments are made in respect of Richborough Estates site (reference 214), which is Areas 2 and 3 within the Warwick South area. In respect of Connectivity, the site has been assessed as (D) and (E). The land immediately adjacent to Hampton Road (Area 3) is assessed as (D), which is defined as having barriers which may be overcome but not easily. It is not clear from the supporting text what barrier exists to connectivity on Hampton Road, and access can be provided as illustrated in the Vision Document submitted with the call for sites form by Richborough Estates. Hampton Road is a multi-modal route within the urban area that provides for all forms of transport, and can be improved where necessary. Reference is made in the text to noise from the A46, areas of flood risk, and a slight incline. None of these factors impact on connectivity, and can be mitigated or avoided through careful masterplanning. This is demonstrated within the Vision Document submitted with the call for sites by Richborough Estates. It is requested Area 3 is re-assessed in the next iteration of this analysis, particularly as areas separated from the town by the River Avon (Area 1 in Warwick North) are considered to have better connectivity. Area 2 has been assessed as having the least potential for connectivity, and defined as having significant barriers which would be difficult to overcome. Again, it is not clear from the text what the barriers are to connectivity, or why this part of the area has been assessed differently to land to the south (Area 3). Access to Area 2 can be provided around the racecourse straight as illustrated within the Vision Document submitted with the call for sites submission by Richborough Estates. This parcel of land therefore has the same connection to the town as Area 3, and should be re-assessed in the same way. As above, reference to noise and flood risk are constraints that can be overcome through careful masterplanning. In relation to Connectivity, it is also worth remembering that one of the key benefits from the strategic allocation of this site is the ability to provide an active travel connection from the west of Warwick area, through the site and over the A46, and into Warwick Parkway Rail Station. This could provide a safe, direct, and convenient route for pedestrians, cyclists or e-bike users who are new residents or existing residents who live in Chase Meadow or the Shakespeare Estate. This would be a significant benefit, and assist the Council in seeking to achieve carbon reductions during the lifetime of the Plan. In respect of Landforms, it is noted there is reference to a slight incline on Area 3, but this is marginal and not a constraint on development. In respect of local facilities within 800m, it is noted that the report highlights the absence of retail/jobs/economy, healthcare, and education for Area 2. However, the area is within 800m of the Racecourse which is an employer in the area, and this should be recognised in the next iteration of the Analysis. The area is also only marginally just over 800m to the Chase Meadow Local Centre and Newburgh Primary School. It is noted that Area 3 has all facilities within 800m which shows how suitable this area for development given its proximity to facilities. When taking account of the evidence above, Areas 2 and 3 are a suitable location to accommodate a strategic allocation, as there are no barriers to connectivity to the town, and facilities are available within 800m.
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 village of Alderminster has not been included within the Settlement Analysis evidence supporting the South Warwickshire Local Plan. In the absence of any analysis, the following comments are therefore made in support of growth at Alderminster. Land east of Skylark Road, Alderminster is allocated for up to 20 self-build and/or custom-build dwellings under Proposal SCB.2: East of Skylark Road, Alderminster in the Site Allocations Plan (SAP) Revised Preferred Options Consultation (June 2022). The site was also identified as a site that is likely to be deliverable in the SHLAA (2021) under reference ALD.05. The SHLAA assessed the site and also an adjacent piece of land to the north as one parcel concluding that the site is ‘likely to be deliverable’. The SHLAA also stated that development could be accommodated on the lower part of the site which can be mitigated effectively through landscaping and planting. Rosconn Strategic Land wish to develop the lower part of the site for custom /self-build which is therefore in line with the SHLAA assessment. In terms of the site context, land to the south-west between Shipston Road and the site was granted planning permission for 25 dwellings. This site has now been built out and is known as Skylark Road. Rosconn Strategic Land east of Skylark Road would utilise the existing access. The land interest east of Skylark Road lies adjacent to the built up area boundary on two of its boundaries, with the north-east and south-east boundaries adjoining agricultural land. The north and eastern boundaries also form the proposed built up area boundary in the draft SAP. In the adopted Core Strategy for Stratford-on-Avon, Alderminster is defined as a Category 4 Local Service Village and is therefore considered a suitable location for development. The site lies within Flood Zone 1, which is the lowest possible risk of flooding and is suitable for development. The site falls within the Stour Feldon Edge land parcel of the Stour Valley Landscape Character Area, and there are no special landscape designations in this area that could impact the site. A Landscape and Visual Appraisal was prepared for the site by FPCR, their assessment concluded that new development will appear in context as a modest extension to existing residential development within the village. There are limited landscape features within the site and the existing vegetation along the south-eastern boundary will be retained and enhanced as part of proposed development. There is a Grade II* listed building to the north of the site (west of Shipston Road) known as ‘The Church of St Mary and the Holy Cross’, and there are also various other grade II listed buildings within the village. Of the identified designated heritage assets, only Quince Cottage and the Church have potential inter-visibility with the site. Any tentative relationship between the cottage and its setting or between the church and the application site has been severed by the construction of the intervening residential estate. Development east of Skylark Road would therefore have no impact on the settings of any listed buildings. When taking account of the information above, land east of Skylark Road is considered a suitable location to accommodate development within the village of Alderminster. 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 off Skylark Road, Alderminster 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
The following comments are made in respect of Countryside Properties site west of Newbold Road, which is referenced as Area 3 within the Wellesbourne area. In respect of Connectivity, the site has been assessed as ‘C’. This is defined as having barriers that may be overcome. The commentary in the Analysis states that the floodplain acts as a barrier between the site and houses to the south, and therefore unlikely to connect to existing cul-de-sacs. That is correct for vehicular traffic, however the flood plain does not prohibit active travel routes connecting the two areas and enabling residents to walk or cycle into the settlement. The Masterplan submitted to the Councils with these representations demonstrates how this would be achieved, and how vehicular access to Newbold Road would be provided. As Newbold Road is capable of accommodating all modes of transport, there are no significant barriers to connectivity to the settlement and this should be rectified in the next iteration of the Analysis to a score of (A). In respect of Landforms, Flood Zones 2 and 3 are noted on the southern boundary and would be retained. It should be noted that a particular aspiration of the Neighbourhood Plan is to secure such areas for open space to address a deficit in this area. In respect of local facilities within 800m, it is noted that the report highlights the absence of Healthcare for Area 3. However, Hastings House Medical Centre is within 800m of the site and therefore this should be rectified in the next iteration of the Analysis. When taking account of the evidence above, Area 3 is a suitable location to accommodate development as there are no barriers to connectivity to the village and all facilities are available within 800m. The Heritage Assessment is also noted which confirms there is scope for carefully considered development in the north east area between the A429 and Wellesbourne Road. In conclusion, Area 3 (land west of Newbold Road) is a suitable location for a strategic allocation for the growth of Wellesbourne. The site is unconstrained, well connected to the settlement, and can deliver up to 500 homes and a sizeable area of open space that addresses a local deficiency in the area. The vision for the site is articulated within the Vision Document submitted separately. Further, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, the land to the north of Wellesbourne represents the best performing option to accommodate a strategic allocation.