Q-S4.1: Do you think that growth of some of our existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy?
No answer given
Bloor Homes site east of Shipston Road (Site 382) was not assessed within the Settlement Analysis Report. It is not clear why this land has not been assessed as it adjoins the built-up area boundary, and it is proposed in part for allocation as part of the emerging Site Allocations Plan. It is requested this is addressed in any update of the assessment. This site is well connected as evident by the proposed allocation of the north west element in Stratford-on-Avon District Council’s emerging Site Allocations Plan for a mixed use (housing and employment) development. Active and sustainable travel linkages exist along Shipston Road and the Tramway into the town centre from the site, and local facilities are within 800m of the site. This is therefore inherently a suitable location to accommodate growth, both the land proposed to be allocated within the Site Allocations Plan and the remaining adjoining area of land.
The following comments are made in respect of Bloor Homes site, which is referenced as Areas 4 and 5 within the Stratford South West Area. Although, please note built development is only proposed on Area 5. In respect of Connectivity, the site has been assessed as ‘D’. However, no account has been taken of the Land west of Shottery mixed use development which includes 800 new homes that are currently under construction by Bloor and Bovis Homes and will be completed within the next 10 years. As identified above, paragraph 73. a) of the NPPF requires Councils to consider the opportunities presented by existing or planned investment in infrastructure when deciding the location of new development. The assessment of connectivity must have regard to planned investment, which in this case relates to the Western Relief Road. The Transport Strategy appended to these representations demonstrates how this site would be connected through the West Shottery development under construction and into the existing urban area. It is therefore considered that active and sustainable modes of travel from Areas 4 and 5 to the town can be made into the urban area, and that connectivity is not a barrier that would prevent the area from being a strategic allocation. In respect of Landforms, it is noted there are no physical constraints on Areas 4 and 5. In respect of local facilities within 800m, it is noted that the report highlights the absence of Healthcare and Places to Meet for Areas 4 and 5. However, both facilities are consented within the Land west of Shottery Development to the immediate north east of the Areas. We have no reason to believe they will not be delivered and once completed will mean all facilities are within 800m. The area will then perform equal best. When taking account of the evidence above, Areas 4 and 5 are suitable locations to accommodate a strategic allocation, as there are no barriers to connectivity to the town, no constraints, and facilities are available within 800m. Further, the proposals incorporate a significant area of green infrastructure that could form an extended Country Park west of Shottery. This area would have many benefits, including the delivering of biodiversity net gain as evidenced within the report submitted with these representations.
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 interest; south of Avon Way, Bidford (Site 473) which falls within Area 1 within the Settlement Design Analysis. In respect of connectivity, the Area has been assessed as ‘D’. This is considered as having significant barriers that would be difficult to overcome. The commentary in the Settlement Analysis states that barriers to connectivity can only be overcome via the new development to the north of the site. There is an agreement in place with Persimmon Homes to access the Site via the development to the north known as Bidford Meadows. The necessary space has been reserved to ensure a suitable vehicular and pedestrian access from Salford Road through Bidford Meadows / Avon Way. The accompanying Transport Technical Note (Savoy Consulting, December 2020) demonstrates that the existing vehicular access onto Salford Road has sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic movements associated with both the existing Bidford Meadows development and the development of Land South of Salford Road. There is therefore no significant barrier to connectivity, and the site should be assessed as ‘A’ in the next iteration of the Analysis. In respect of Landforms, the Development Framework illustrates how the flood zones to the east and south can be avoided. In respect of local facilities within 800m, Area 1 scores very well with the site scoring 4 out of 5, only marked down for healthcare facilities. It should however be noted that Bidford-on-Avon Health Centre is outside of the village, and so the majority of sites are beyond 800m. Overall, Area 1 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. It should also be highlighted that the Stratford on Avon District Council scored the site (BID.13) positively within the SHLAA 2021 update. The assessment concluded that the site is well related to housing development to the north and that the impact of further development could be effectively mitigated. Land south of Avon Way is therefore considered to be capable of accommodating an appropriately designed residential development set within a robust GI framework as presented in the accompanying Development Framework Plan. The Development Framework Plan illustrates how a new landscape and planting belt can be established to the southern and eastern boundaries of the site which will both screen the proposed built-form and create long-term defensible boundaries to the surrounding countryside as well as delivering a significant area of new open space. A Supporting Landscape Statement (FPCR, October 2020) has been completed which demonstrates that the site benefits from a high degree of visual containment within existing landscape and built features. The adjacent built-up area to the north significantly influences the character of the site with views available of these modern residential properties. Small Brook, a well-vegetated watercourse, runs adjacent to the site's western boundary, with the site's eastern boundary being partially enclosed by an established tree line. Whilst open countryside lies to the south and south east, the accompanying Development Framework Plan demonstrates how a strong landscape framework can be achieved along these boundaries. 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 south of Avon Way, Bidford on Avon, 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
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 (470) which falls within Area 7 within the Analysis. In respect of connectivity, the Area has been assessed as ‘C’ defined as barriers which may be overcome, but not easily. The commentary in the Settlement Analysis states that existing ribbon development limits access points to the brown route. However, the Development Framework Plan submitted with these representations demonstrates how access to Banbury Road can be achieved. As Banbury Road 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 respect of landforms, there are no constraints on Area 7, and the site falls outside of Flood Zones 2 and 3, with large areas of Flood Zones 2 and 3 located south of Banbury Road. Therefore growth to the north of the village is supported in flood risk terms, with the area sequentially preferable under national planning policy. In respect of local facilities within 800m, Area 7 scores 5 out of 5 with the site being within 800m of retail and job opportunities, places to meet, open space and leisure, healthcare and finally education facilities. Area 7 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 range of local facilities. It should also be highlighted that the Stratford on Avon District Council scored the site (KIN.08) positively within the SHLAA 2021 update. The assessment concluded that development on southern part of the site could be mitigated effectively through extensive landscaping along its northern boundary. Land north of Banbury Road is therefore considered to be capable of accommodating an appropriately designed residential development set within a robust GI framework as presented in the accompanying Development Framework Plan. Rosconn Strategic Land have therefore shown that the landscape impact can be mitigated effectively to ensure that the scheme can deliver well designed homes at this location. 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 Banbury Road, Kineton, 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
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 east of Marton Road, Long Itchington (site 469) which forms part of Area 10. In respect of Connectivity, the Area has been assessed as ‘D’. This is defined as having significant barriers that would be difficult to overcome. The commentary states that access would be via loop / cul-de-sac. Only access to brown route is at far end of this area, furthest from village centre. However, the accompanying Development Framework Plan illustrates how a suitable access can be provided to this site from Cox Crescent off Marton Road. Access directly onto Marton Road to the north would not be necessary for this small part of the Area. Connectivity should therefore be re-assessed as ‘B’ in the next iteration of the Analysis. 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 10 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 10 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 should also be highlighted that Stratford-on-Avon District Council scored the site (LONG.01) positively within the SHLAA 2021 update. The assessment concluded that as the site was adjacent to a recent housing scheme (Lilac View) that the site could be delivered through the existing access. A landscape appraisal has been undertaken for land east of Marton Road (FPCR, October 2020) which concludes that development of the site could be accommodated whilst respecting the adjacent settlement form and would be in keeping with the adjacent residential development. It is 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. Stratford-on-Avon District Council have also previously allocated the site as a reserve within Long Itchington (Ref: LONG.A) within the Preferred Options 2020 Site Allocations Plan (October 2020). 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 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
For detailed comments see Barton Willmore, now Stantec, letter dated 6 March 2023 and email dated 6 March 2023 with enclosures. Additional comments as follows: The Settlement Analysis focuses on 3 key components: Connectivity, Accessibility and Density. Long Itchington is identified as an additional settlement for assessment. The site is allocated as area number 14, it is found to have a Connectivity Grade of B, where A is the best connectivity. The Connectivity Grade Analysis states that there are cycle routes to the south along the canal and track access from the road to towpath. A potential connection to cycle route and link along the canal and discussed railway to the south. No readings are given in terms of landform analysis, i.e. the site is not within Flood Zones 2 and 3 nor is it green infrastructure. In regards to Local Facilities within 800m of the site, it has access to all items identified: retail, jobs and economy; places to meet; open space, leisure, recreation – wellbeing; healthcare and education. This means it is one of the highest scoring sites, the only other being the CEMEX site to the south (area 15). This shows that the site is a positive development prospect at the edge of the settlement and has good prospect for growth in the context of connectivity and accessibility. The most recent SHLAA (September 2021) finds that the Long Itchington site (LONG.07) secures some ‘Amber’ issues and one ‘Red’ and concludes that the site can contribute 39 units in years 1 – 5. In order to support the promotion of the Site through the emerging Development Plan CEMEX has undertaken an exercise to update the evidence base and respond to the amber and red issues identified. An illustrative layout has also been prepared to demonstrate how development can be brought forward on the site (see Appendix 2). A Pre-Application request was submitted to agree to remove the technical impediments to delivery (see Appendix 2 for updated pack). The Case Officer’s Pre-application Response (see Appendix 3) suggested that further advice was required from County Officers in regard to Ecology, Landscape, Heritage, Transport, Minerals and Flooding. It should be noted that Stantec held pre-application discussions with Warwickshire County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority which informed the suggested illustrative masterplan. CEMEX has instructed the engagement with the remaining consultees and pre-application requests have been submitted seeking further advice. The consultant team has prepared a further update to their reports as part of the evidence base and this is submitted in support of the Call for Sites submission, it shows that there are no technical impediments to the site coming forward for development. We would therefore suggest that there is a need for the Council to undertake a further review through the HELAA.
The village of Harbury has not been included within the Settlement Analysis evidence supporting the South Warwickshire Local Plan, and this should be rectified in the next iteration of the analysis. The Settlement Analysis states that it focuses on the first and second tier settlements, with a number of additional settlements also identified and assessed. This includes a range of Category 1, 2, 3, and 4 Local Service Villages in Stratford-on-Avon, but not Harbury which is identified as a Category 1 Local Service Village in the adopted Core Strategy. Harbury should be included in the next iteration of this analysis given its size, range of facilities, and status as a Category 1 Village. It is a suitable location to accommodate growth commensurate with its size and facilities, and therefore it should be assessed. In the absence of any analysis, the following comments are therefore made in support of growth at land at east of Harbury (site 377). In terms of connectivity, the site is adjacent to the eastern edge of the settlement and bordered by the B4452 and Butt Lane. Both routes can accommodate all modes of transport. There are therefore no barriers to connectivity with the settlement. In fact, the ability to connect with Vicarage Lane provides a direct route into the centre. In terms of landform, there are no constraints on the site. Furthermore, it will be noted from the Council’s 2012 Landscape Sensitivity Assessment that site 377 is considered high/medium landscape sensitivity equivalent to the best performing parcels around the village. In terms of local facilities within 800m, the village church, shops, playing fields, and village hall are all within 800m. The primary school and doctors surgery is just beyond 800m but within reasonable walking distance. In more detail, this area has the greatest potential to accommodate development without harming the existing residential areas given the separation afforded by Butt Lane. Its location also means it is unique in being able to route traffic to both the M40 and Leamington (via Chesterton Road to the south and Harbury Lane) avoiding the village centre. It also has the potential to offer land to enhance village facilities and services. When taking account of the evidence above, site 377 is a suitable location to accommodate an allocation, as there are no barriers to connectivity to the village, no constraints, and facilities are available within 800m. In light of the potential of this site to contribute to meeting development needs over the Plan period in a sustainable location outside of the Green Belt, we respectfully request the site be allocated within the South Warwickshire Local Plan.
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 Lower Quinton 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 Lower Quinton. In terms of context, the site north of Main Road, Lower Quinton (Site 508) is located on the northern edge of Lower Quinton with agricultural land to the north and west. To the east, there are playing fields associated with Lower Quinton Village Hall. The southern boundary is mostly defined by the rear gardens of residential properties on Magdalen Close, Millfield Close, Ayleston Close, St. Swithin’s Drive and by the grounds of Quinton House (currently used as a nursing home). Quinton is defined as a Category 1 Local Service Village within the Settlement Hierarchy in the adopted Core Strategy. The village has a number of community services and facilities, including Convenience Store and Post Office, Takeaway, Village Hall and Playing Field, Public House / Inn, Primary School, Medical Centre and Church. In view of Quinton’s sustainability credentials as outlined above, Quinton should be assessed as a Small Settlement Location (SSL) within the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) informing the South Warwickshire Local Plan. Rosconn Strategic Land therefore request that Quinton is assessed as a growth location and a SSL in the next iteration of the SA as it is a highly sustainable location, with an excellent range of facilities available within the village, therefore aligning with the 20 minute neighbourhood ideal. There are bus stops on Main Road providing a regular service to Stratford upon Avon and services to Moreton-in-Marsh, and Chipping Campden. North of the village, beyond Campden Road, a new garden village of around 3,500 homes and associated uses has started construction at the former Long Marston Airfield. The site lies within Flood Zone 1, which is the lowest possible risk of flooding and is suitable for development, therefore are therefore no constraints in terms of flood risk. 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 360m to the east, within the historic core of the village. A Desk Based Heritage Assessment has not identified any designed archaeological remains within the site. There are no special landscape designations affecting the site, which is separated from the Cotswolds AONB to the south by existing built development. The site is located in the ‘Avon Valley’ Regional Landscape Character Area and within the ‘Vale Farmlands Landscape Character Type’. This indicates that there is scope for development if appropriate access and advanced planting can be secured. The site is located immediately adjacent to the northern edge of the existing settlement, and avoids areas of greater sensitivity to the south and east and constraints to the west. The Call for Sites submission for the site highlights that significant benefits to the local community can be delivered through a sensitively designed development. These include a dedicated pupil drop off/pick up area and land to expand the existing Primary School, extension of existing playing fields and significant areas of public open space, due to the site immediately adjoining these existing facilities. Access would be taken through the completed Cameron Homes development (Lilac Avenue connection with Main Road). The proposal would also ensure that traffic generated by the development would not need to pass through the village centre along Main Road, and the centre of the village. When taking account of the information above, land north of Main Road is considered a suitable location to accommodate modest development at the village of Lower Quinton commensurate with the scale of settlement. 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 Main Road, Lower Quinton 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.
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, jobs, 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 east of Warwick Road, which is referenced as Area 2 within the Wellesbourne area. In respect of Connectivity, the site has been assessed as ‘D’. This is defined as having significant barriers that would be difficult to overcome. The commentary in the Settlement Analysis states that the access is currently used as parking area and entrance to footpath. However, a suitable access can be provided to this site from the public highway, and this was accepted by the Neighbourhood Plan when allocating this site for housing. As Warwick Road 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). Reference is also made in the Settlement Analysis to the land being unlikely to be suitable as almost completely in the flood plain. That is not correct, as parts of the site are outside of Flood Risk Zones 2 and 3 and are therefore appropriate for development. Additionally, the Wellesbourne and Walton Neighbourhood Plan (WWNP) states at page 63 that the actual extent of the floodplain was assessed by detailed hydraulic modelling to inform the allocation of Area 1 (Land at Warwick Road) in the Neighbourhood Plan and in order to determine the extent of the developable area outside Flood Zones 2 and 3. Rosconn Strategic Land are currently undertaking updated hydraulic modelling to ensure that the modelling data remains accurate set against more recent flood risk guidance. In respect of Landforms, Flood Zones 2 and 3 are noted and would be retained. It should be noted that a particular aspiration of the Neighbourhood Plan is to secure these 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 2. 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 2 is a suitable location to accommodate development as there are no barriers to connectivity to the village and all facilities are available within 800m. 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 at Warwick Road, Wellesbourne 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
It is unfortunate the Settlement Analysis Report in dividing the southern urban area Warwick and Leamington Spa; and only focussing on land immediately adjacent to the village of Bishop’s Tachbrook means that Land East of Europa Way has not been assessed. Clearly there is time to remedy this unfortunate consequence of subdividing assessment areas. Any assessment is likely to identify the Site as having better than average connectivity, with opportunities to join up with Europa Way, Banbury Road, north to Lower Heathcote and east towards Bishop’s Tachbrook. Any assessment should be mindful of the detailed consents at the Asps, Tachbrook Country Park and Oakley Grove and the proposed improvements to the Europa Way corridor.
No answer given
The SWLP Issues and Options consultation evidence base includes a Settlement Analysis which reviews existing settlement structures across South Warwickshire with a view to guiding future development, assessing connectivity, landforms, accessibility to local facilities and density. Kingswood is broken up into 12 Areas, with MacMic Group’s interest at Land at Station Lane, Kingswood forming a large proportion of Area 7. The assessment of Area 7 in the Settlement Analysis with associated commentary is provided below. Connectivity – Area 7 is graded B in recognition of its accessibility to key routes in the settlement, including Station Lane and the canal towpath. Area 7 is one of only four Areas in Kingswood graded B on connectivity, with the remainder achieving C, D or E. Landforms – Area 7 is clear of any constraints aside from Flood Zones 2 and 3 on the eastern boundary of the site, which can be appropriately avoided and indeed enhanced in bringing forward residential development on Land at Station Lane, Kingswood. Local Facilities – Area 7 scores 2 out of 5 with regard to accessibility to local facilities, being within 800m of categories: Places to Meet and Education. In terms of Retail, Jobs and Economy, it is recognised that Area 7 falls outside the 800m limit, however this is marginal with the convenience store, post office and other retail and employment generating uses falling around 850-900m of Area 7 and thus still considered generally accessible. With regard to Open Space, Leisure, Recreation – Wellbeing, the Concept Masterplan demonstrates how significant green infrastructure provision and associated access to the canal towpath is to be incorporated into the development. On Healthcare, it is recognised that Area 7 falls outside the 800m limit, however again this is marginal with the surgery falling within 1km and thus still considered generally accessible. Connections with local facilities are supported in the emerging Concept Masterplan through maximising existing links and providing additional accessibility where appropriate. Density – Kingswood is covered entirely by residential development classified as ‘Outer Suburb (approx. 20-40 dph)’. This has been taken account of in the emerging Concept Masterplan for Land at Station Lane, Kingswood, with residential development proposed at an average of 36 dph. In conclusion, Area 7 performs well in the Settlement Analysis for Kingswood, particularly with regard to Connectivity and Landforms. With regard to access to Local Facilities, whilst some of these fall outside of the 800m threshold, this is marginal and generally the range of facilities on offer in Kingswood are considered to be accessible. This will be supported through significant green infrastructure provision on Land at Station Lane, Kingswood, along with improved connectivity from the Site. The density mapping has been considered and is reflected in the Concept Masterplan for Land at Station Lane, Kingswood with residential development proposed at an average of 36 dph. MacMic Group consider that more weight should be afforded to accessibility to rail in the Settlement Analysis and indeed wider consideration of the development strategy and site selection.
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
The Settlement Analysis has understandably focussed on assisting with identifying locations for new housing. However, a similar exercise should be carried out for employment. It is noted that Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath falls within the spatial growth option, Economy Option (3). However, no analysis has been undertaken as to its ability to accommodate employment growth. This work should be undertaken to inform the next iteration of the Plan, and in particular take into consideration the opportunities to expand Jaguar Land Rover (sites 375 and 376).
We believe that the work undertaken so far is a reasonable start but that it is incomplete and potentially misleading. There are many more factors to be considered than the ones that are there at present not least that focusing simply on rail corridors will fail to future proof transport strategies and .accessibility. Lapworth Parish Council looks forward to the opportunity to discuss all the potential sites in Lapworth/Kingswood in more details if they are taken forward to the next stages. We would point out that Lapworth/Kingswood is missing from the Index for Appendix 2. This omission may reduce the number of responses to this consultation. We would also point out that the Heritage Assessment does not include some important elements eg Harborough Banks scheduled ancient monument elements of which may be present within the Kingswood area and the listed Mill House. The ancient woodland at Packwood House and Baddersley Clinton are also not referenced.
Our main comment at this stage about the settlement analyses is that there appears to be inconsistencies in some of the analyses particularly relating to connectivity. Some of the analyses have far more subjective comments than others, which suggest a certain outcome/conclusion. Consistency of approach and objectivity is important.
The growth of existing small settlements with good accessibility and connectivity has great potential to achieve 20-minute neighbourhood principles, whilst also improving facilities for existing residents at those settlements, since significant growth would bring with it new facilities and would also support the viability of existing facilities and therefore the vitality of the village. Therefore, the growth of existing settlements should certainly be part of the overall strategy. Kingswood in particular is one of the few settlements (5 out of the 22 assessed) which scores ++ (Major Positive Impact) in the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Table 5.1 in terms of accessibility, owing to it having both train and bus services. Given the importance of minimising car journeys in tackling the climate change crisis, such settlements with good accessibility should be a focus for growth. Furthermore, the north of Kingswood is ranked as having the highest level of connectivity in the Connectivity Analysis for the settlement and therefore the north of the settlement should be a particular area of search for potential site allocations. Nurton Developments (Lapworth) Ltd both supports and objects to different elements of the settlement analysis in respect of Kingswood (Lapworth) and comments as follows on each element of the assessment. SOUTH WARWICKSHIRE SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS – JANUARY 2023 The analysis of Sector 6 in the Connectivity Analysis as Grade B is supported. This supports our earlier representations, which identified that this location, immediately adjacent to the built-up area of Kingswood and only 700 metres from Lapworth railway station, benefits from convenient access to rail services from Lapworth station to London, Birmingham, Stratford on Avon and Leamington Spa. The settlement analysis won’t have taken into account the concept masterplan we submitted with earlier representations, which shows how the proposed development of 125 dwellings could make the most of its sustainable location by enhancing pedestrian connectivity with the adjacent built-up area, which provides a link via Station Lane to local services. It is proposed that Rising Lane is altered such that the main carriageway route provides access in a loop through the site and the existing Rising Lane carriageway is downgraded to a much quieter rural lane. This provides a much more pedestrian-friendly environment and integrates the proposed development with the existing built-up area. Neighbouring properties benefit from a reduction in passing traffic and the change in nature of Rising Lane offers an opportunity for environmental and pedestrian connectivity enhancements. This further supports the analysis of the location as offering good connectivity. The Landforms Analysis identifies some of the land north of Rising Lane as falling within Flood Zones 2 and 3. The 125 dwellings promoted for this area in previous representations have been masterplanned to avoid the flood risk areas and as such are deliverable. The Accessibility Analysis identifies that retail, open space, healthcare and education facilities are all beyond 800 metres from Area 6. However, we would note that they are only around 1.2km away, along Station Lane, which has a footway and is lit. There is therefore potential for walking to local facilities from Area 6 and the connectivity analysis discussed above would support this.
Nurton Developments (Loes Farm) Ltd supports that the growth of some of the existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy and supports in particular that Warwick is included in the list of settlements considered for development potential. However, it will be highlighted in representations in response to Q-S10 that, other than Warwick Parkway, Warwick has not been listed in any of the growth options as a settlement that would receive growth. We would submit that Warwick should be looked at as a whole settlement, not least because development to the west of the settlement, in the vicinity of Warwick Parkway, has been identified as harmful in the Heritage and Settlement Sensitivity Assessment. That assessment recommends that development to the west of Warwick should be avoided. Also, as will be discussed in our response to Q-S4.2, the area to the north of Warwick has the best connectivity (in terms of local facilities within 800m) and accessibility of any sector around Warwick, whereas the area to the west has the worst connectivity of any of the Broad Locations and development there would lead to a major adverse impact on transport. Nurton Developments (Loes Farm) Ltd both supports and objects to different elements of the settlement analysis in respect of Warwick and comments as follows on each element of the assessment. SOUTH WARWICKSHIRE SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS – JANUARY 2023 The Connectivity Analysis for Warwick North identifies that Sector 2 has fairly poor connectivity, since the access route along the Coventry Road is on a fairly steep incline, rising to a very steep incline. For some reason the access route along Woodloes Lane, where pedestrian access could be taken to connect to the residential area to the south, from an existing Public Right of Way, is not assessed in the Connectivity Analysis. If it were, then it would offer excellent connectivity. It is more likely that pedestrians would use this route for connections into Warwick than the access along Coventry Road, so the area north of Warwick, enclosed by the A46 and Coventry Road, could offer very good connectivity overall. The Connectivity Analysis should be amended to take this into account. It is noted that the assessment for Warwick North in terms of local facilities within 800m identifies Sector 2 as having the best connectivity. The only item not within 800 metres is ‘open space, leisure, recreation – wellbeing’. This is questionable because both the Canalside Recreation Area and Millbank Park are within 800 metres, but in any case we would highlight that proposals for Sector 2, as identified in the Loes Farm vision document submitted to the previous consultation, have proposed that the Historic Park & Garden designated area within this sector would deliver an extensive area of Public Open Space as a new country park.
Wellesbourne It is considered that the whole process of connectivity including both the accessibility mapping and local facilities within the Settlement Analysis report is over simplified and does not look holistically at a site or its location. The assessments need to be applied carefully and not be too prescriptive as some sites may have multiple facilities just beyond the 800 metres (20-minute walking time) and could still be sustainable locations for new housing. We specifically object to the Connectivity Analysis for Area 11 in Wellesbourne which incorrectly categorises Call for Sites Reference 162 (Land at Chadley House, Loxley Road) as Grade C. Within the Settlement Analysis Report Grade C is described as having: “barriers may be overcome, but not easily. Connects to: - one brown or red route - potential for connecting existing cul-de-sacs or loops into new red route - active links (e.g. via green / blue infrastructure or other active links) are possible but not easy” Site 162 (Land at Chadley House, Loxley Road) has immediate access to a primary street which has a footway available opposite to access employment opportunities in a large existing employment area, bus stops on Dovehouse Drive, supermarket, community centre, playing fields and convenience store. Please refer to the Vision Document submitted as part of the call for sites submission which includes an accessibility map. Based on the above, it is considered that the connectivity analysis should be amended from Grade C to Grade B. We also question why Areas 5 and 6 in Wellesbourne have been categorised as Grade B as whilst the connectivity analysis shows these sites are partially adjacent to both a primary street or thoroughfare, neither of the sites has an existing access in place, unlike for example Call for Sites Reference 162. Furthermore, the connectivity analysis comments that the “Village already feels unbalanced to the south, and development here would exacerbate that”. We object to this comment as firstly, it is not relevant to the connectivity assessment. Secondly, it is more conclusive and restrictive compared to other settlements and this appears to pre-empt a balanced assessment of the options. The assessment of other settlements in the Settlement Analysis don’t have this level of assessment at this stage and consistency in the assessments approach is important.
Radford Semele It is considered that the whole process of connectivity including both the accessibility mapping and local facilities within the Settlement Analysis report is over simplified and does not look holistically at a site or its location. The assessments need to be applied carefully and not be too prescriptive as some sites may have multiple facilities just beyond the 800 metres (20-minute walking time) and could still be sustainable locations for new housing. We specifically object to the Connectivity Analysis for Area 9 in Radford Semele which incorrectly categorises Call for Sites Reference 142 (Land south of The Cricketers) as Grade D. Within the Settlement Analysis Report Grade D is described as having: “significant barriers which would be difficult to overcome and connects to: - green route, loops or cul-de-sacs only, with limited or no potential to connect these into new red route - limited or no potential active links e.g., via green / blue infrastructure or other active links”. The assessment comments for Area 9 state that the site “would need to link through current development north of the area, downgraded for this reason”. We strongly disagree with these findings of the connectivity analysis. The Connectivity Analysis map incorrectly identifies Area 9 as being accessed via a footpath. Area 9 (Site 142) is however proposed to form a further phase of the recently completed residential development at The Cricketers and so it has direct access into a secondary street. Access into Area 9 (Site 142) has been specifically allowed for in the design of The Cricketers scheme and can accommodate the additional traffic generated by further housing. In regard to active links, Area 9 also has direct access to an active link as a public right of way runs along the eastern and western boundaries of the site which are proposed to be maintained as part of any housing development. The site is also in very close proximity to the existing village recreation ground; however, we note that this has incorrectly not been identified as part of the village’s existing green infrastructure. There is also potential for further active links as an additional Call for Sites has been submitted by A.C. Lloyd Homes which comprises of land west of Radford Semele. This area is being promoted for open space/biodiversity/ green infrastructure uses in connection with, and accessed via, land south of The Cricketers. Based on the above, the analysis should be amended from Grade D to Grade B as any barriers are negligible or easily overcome; the site connects to a red route (thoroughfare); and there is both strong existing and potential active links. In regard to the Accessibility Table for Radford Semele within the Settlement Analysis, it is not clear why Areas 6, 7 and 8 have a score of 1 for healthcare as the village does not appear to have any health service within 800 metres of these sites.
Blackdown It is considered that the whole process of connectivity including both the accessibility mapping and local facilities within the Settlement Analysis report is over simplified and does not look holistically at a site or its location. The assessments need to be applied carefully and not be too prescriptive as some sites may have multiple facilities just beyond the 800 metres (20-minute walking time) and could still be sustainable locations for new housing. We specifically object to the Connectivity Analysis for Areas 9, 10 and 12 in Cubbington and North Leamington which incorrectly categorise Call for Sites References 174, 210 and 211 as Grade C. Within the Settlement Analysis Report Grade C is described as having: “barriers may be overcome, but not easily. Connects to: - one brown or red route - potential for connecting existing cul-de-sacs or loops into new red route - active links (e.g. via green / blue infrastructure or other active links) are possible but not easy The assessment comments for Areas 9 and 10 state that there is an existing footpath to the east and west. It is noted that a public right of way (132/W206/1) runs through Call for Sites Ref 174 which forms an active link from Westhill Road to Leicester Lane. Based on the above, the analysis should be amended from Grade C to Grade B as any barriers are negligible or easily overcome; the site connects to a brown route (primary street); and there is a strong existing active link within both Areas 9 and D and in close proximity to Area 12.
Southam It is considered that the whole process of connectivity including both the accessibility mapping and local facilities within the Settlement Analysis report is over simplified and does not look holistically at a site or its location. The assessments need to be applied carefully and not be too prescriptive as some sites may have multiple facilities just beyond the 800 metres (20-minute walking time) and could still be sustainable locations for new housing. We specifically object to the Connectivity Analysis for Area 7 in Southam which incorrectly categorises Call for Sites Reference 64 (Land North of Leamington Road) as Grade C. Within the Settlement Analysis Report Grade C is described as: “barriers may be overcome, but not easily. Connects to: - one brown or red route - potential for connecting existing cul-de-sacs or loops into new red route - active links (e.g. via green / blue infrastructure or other active links) are possible but not easy Land north of Leamington Road has immediate access to a primary street which has a footway to access employment opportunities at Holywell Business Park, a supermarket, bus stops on Leamington Road, and a GP surgery. Based on the above, the analysis should be amended from Grade C to Grade B as any barriers are negligible or easily overcome; the site connects to a brown route (primary street); and there is a strong existing active link to Southam town centre.
No answer given