Q-S5.2: Do you think new settlements should be part of the overall strategy?
No answer given
I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non- greenbelt site.
I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non-greenbelt site.
Depends on the location. Warwick and Leamington have regular, reliable, rapid train services to Birmingham and London. The Henley railway line has an infrequent slow service to Birmingham with trains often cancelled. For this reason, we rarely now get the train from Henley to Birmingham with preference for car usage, I know we are not alone in this. It may look good on a map that Henley has a train station but in reality the service is poor, an unreliable service should not be the main basis for a potential location of growth. More information needs to be collated about local services prior to basing housing strategy on them.
Depends on the location. Warwick and Leamington have regular, reliable, rapid train services to Birmingham and London. The Henley railway line has an infrequent slow service to Birmingham with trains often cancelled. For this reason, we rarely now get the train from Henley to Birmingham with preference for car usage, I know we are not alone in this. It may look good on a map that Henley has a train station but in reality the service is poor, an unreliable service should not be the main basis for a potential location of growth. More information needs to be collated about local services prior to basing housing strategy on them.
I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non-greenbelt site.
No answer given
Q-S5.3/5.4: We are looking at rail corridors as a preferred approach to identifying potential locations. Do you agree? If not, what approach would you take? In part yes, but as per our response above, Bellway consider that there should be a broad approach to co-locating development with existing railway infrastructure including proportionate growth on the edge of existing settlements which have these facilities, rather than concentrating all or most rail-focused growth on only a handful of locations, particularly those that currently have no existing stations and associated infrastructure.
The motorways are key. Investment in these is the preferred option demonstrated by the public for the last 30 years. Public transportation methods simply aren’t viable (train and bus) and this is demonstrated by the reduced services offered year on year. They are not convenient or cost effective for the majority. In our location, we have a S106 funded bus service that is only run due to developer contributions. It is not widely used, nor does the service make money.
Q-S5.3/ Q-S5.4: In response to the climate change emergencies, we are looking at rail corridors as a preferred approach to identifying potential locations. Do you agree? If not, what approach would you take? Gladman support the decision to ensure that strategic growth is directed to wellconnected places and/or locations that have the potential to enhance interconnectivity between places. Gladman support the overarching rationale to ensure that strategic growth is directed towards the most connected locations by active and sustainable travel methods, especially where growth is peripheral to the existing settlement. The Councils should also be mindful that there are increasing modes of climate friendly travel options, beyond the traditional train and bus services. The rise of electric vehicles and mobility hubs mean that sustainable travel options do not need to be limited to public transport and can be delivered as part of development schemes to boost the overall sustainability of an area.
Q-S5.3: Don’t Know The term corridor for rail is a little confusing given the distance between stations. It might be more relevant in describing a bus-based corridor where stops are much more frequent. Q-S5.4: Given limitations over capacity, frequency and level of service on the rail network it is probably misplaced to use the rail network as the ‘predominant’ rationale behind the locational strategy, but that public transport should be one of several factors used to steer the locational strategy. This point is of heightened significance post Covid context, where working from home is far more prevalent and, where road transport is required to become carbon free in the foreseeable future. This suggests that greater importance in decisions on the locational framework should relate to quality-of-life considerations. These would tend to favour more development taking place in smaller developments dispersed across the plan area. The existing pattern of development would continue maintain the health of the main existing settlements where regeneration activities would need to be concentrated. A dispersed pattern of development would help to sustain and enhance existing services across the plan area and, could help to improve bus services in those areas that do not have immediate access to rail services.
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
Q-S5.2 22. NPPF paragraph 72 refers to the supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns, provided they are well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities. Significant can mean a different scale of growth dependent upon the size of the settlement. However, a balanced approach to the dispersal of growth to range of settlements rather than just directing new development to a new settlement is to be preferred. 23. As has become increasingly evident through the Government’s Garden Communities Programme, the aspiration to deliver new garden communities is laudable but the cost of delivering a scheme is increasingly difficult without significant intervention in the form of financial assistance. Further, a new settlement is often in a more remote location away from existing settlements or seeks to expand a smaller settlement (e.g. Long Marston) but there is the need for investment by the public sector in delivering the services required to support a community (e.g.M40 improvements at Gaydon). As simple points, a school or healthcare building can be built but it requires the people to operate the facility. 24. By reason of the financial and implementation difficulties, which can extend to securing all the necessary land, a new settlement is not a logical or appropriate option for South Warwickshire at this time. Q-S5.3 Some growth along the rail corridors provides a sustainable strategy but consideration needs to be given to the scale of any development at particular settlements. For example, although both are suitable to accommodate new homes, the scale of growth at Kenilworth will inevitably be greater than at other settlements because of the level of facilities and services available. 26. Further, with the exceptions of parts of Warwick, Leamington Spa and Stratford upon Avon, the majority of the railway stations within South Warwickshire are associated with smaller scale villages located in the Green Belt and both the lack of facilities and Green Belt policy (especially as proposed to be amended in the NPPF) will act as a constraint to significant growth at these villages.
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
Q-S5.3: In response to the climate change emergencies, we are looking at rail corridors as a preferred approach to identifying potential locations. Do you agree? Don't Know The term corridor for rail is a little confusing given the distance between stations. It might be more relevant in describing a bus-based corridor where stops are much more frequent. The plan should also look at planning for new and improved bus services in rural areas and examine how growth for both housing and employment might be used to achieve this. Q-S5.4: If not, what approach would you take? Given limitations over capacity, frequency and level of service on the rail network it is probably misplaced to use the rail network as the ‘predominant’ rationale behind the locational strategy, but that public transport should be one of several factors used to steer the locational strategy. This point is of heightened significance post Covid context, where working from home is far more prevalent and, where road transport is required to become carbon free in the foreseeable future. This suggests that greater importance in decisions on the locational framework should relate to quality-of-life considerations. These would tend to favour more development taking place in smaller developments dispersed across the plan area. The existing pattern ofdevelopment would continue maintain the health of the main existing settlements where regeneration activities would need to be concentrated. A dispersed pattern of development would help to sustain and enhance existing services across the plan area and, could help to improve bus services in those areas that do not have immediate access to rail services.