Q-S5.2: Do you think new settlements should be part of the overall strategy?
5.2 I do think new settlements should be considered, however the development of the Long Marston airfield poses a number of infrastructure concerns, most notably the impact on Stratford-upon-Avon traffic, a town which survives of tourism. In addition, further roads such as the south western relief road would further damage the outlook of the area and risk future tourism to the area. 5.3 I do not feel that with the growth in electric vehicles & now Hybrid working for many that further development of railways is really a viable option. By the time the railway would be built, most people will be using electric vehicles or working part/full time at home.
New settlements can be part of the overall strategy as long as they are NOT on greenbelt land, there are NO exceptional circumstances that justify development on Green belt land. It is wholly unacceptable to consider the development on greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new developments. New infrastructure can be developed to support such non - greenbelt sites. I feel prioritising rail corridors may offer a sensible option for development , as long as it is outside the greenbelt. I feel development alongside rail corridors to the South of the region explicitly avoiding greenbelt development should be supported. The plan states 6000 new homes would justify a new railway station, and there are ample geographical options to achieve this outside of the greenbelt. This would benefit overcrowding existing areas and stations, and at present there is already heavy traffic congestion with people trying to get over the river from North to South to get to the station. A new station to the north in the green belt is TOTALLY unacceptable. The climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land, there are other ways of mitigating against climate emergency without developing on greenbelt.
As discussed in my earlier answer, the parish of Tanworth is a proven example of the fact that railways cannot and should not be considered as a substitute for cars - despite having 4 stations in the Parish multiple car ownership and usage is still the primary form of transport. The M42 is already congested and further development or even a new settlement would lead to further congestion and loss of important greenbelt. This loss of greenbelt should be resisted at all costs both to maintain the open character of the area south of the M42 and to resist the easy option of further urban sprawl. Far better to support the economies of existing towns and settlement and the businesses that exist there. This would in my view have a far less drastic impact of our area than the development of new settlements, particularly of the scale implied within the document Also, none of the stations are fit for purpose and would need significant redevelopment.
Use the M40 motorway corridor
It would only be a relatively small portion of potential working residents who would use the railway, as most places of work are not close to the end station, so requiring further means of transport to a place of work. This would also increase the time of the working day. Unfortunately using a car is more convienent. I think that before any option of a preferred approach to identify potential locations, a new census should be considered, to get a current insight on how and where the population move around the area for work, leisure and shopping.
It is wholly unacceptable to develop any new settlements within Greenbelt land . There are ample non Greenbelt options for new settlements. To create rail corridors is a sensible option but these would be better located in the south of the area to avoid further congestion of the already busy north of the county . Rail links would also need to be supported by environmentally friendly bus services, thus providing choice and flexibility for residents .
However, it should be based on existing routes with connections to main line stations. . The reopening of the route from Stratford to Honeybourne has recently been the subject of a feasibility study which demonstrated that its reopening would not be viable. The route is now a popular walking and cycling route and a wildlife corridor. If a line were to be opened up it would have to be a completely new route. There is no clear route to link up to from the Greenway car park to Stratford Station or through the Rail Innovation Centre at Long Marston. The proposal should be deleted from the assessment as it is not deliverable.
It is unacceptable to consider new settlements in Greenbelt land but this is a proposal in the current consultation document and this goes against NPPF principles. New settlements in NON greenbelt land, along with the necessary infrastructure improvements should be prioritised over any development of any sort in current Greenbelt land and there are several non green belt options that should be prioritised. Rail corridors are a logical option for development but only where Greenbelt land is not impacted and there are options for this to the South of the area. There is scope in the South for the development of 6000 homes which would support a new rail station which would have the benefit of reducing pressure on existing stations. Development North of Leamington would create traffic problems in accessing Leamington Spa station due to the volume of traffic already taking this route. A new station in Greenbelt area would not be acceptable
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
It is noted that an Addendum has been published clarifying the potential for a "New Settlement" near Tamworth in Arden. This is an inappropriate isolated location for a new settlement and compares poorly to the potential at Henley-in-Arden, as below. Henley-in-Arden is an existing settlement, where there should be sustainable growth to help sustain a thriving community. This should be in the form of a sustainable extension, that is not the same thing as a "New Settlement." It is essential (see response to V3 and see Henley-in-Arden Vision document) that rail corridors form the preferred approach to identifying potential locations for development. However - it is also essential that new development takes place close to (say within 20 minutes walking distance) of an existing railway station. It is unrealistic to base new development around the creation of a new railway station - a new railway station is highly unlikely to be developed within the plan period. This is one of many reasons why a new settlement - isolated from any existing settlement - represents an inappropriate development strategy. The 2050 Vision by Forward Group and Alderley Holdings Trust demonstrates how a long-term approach to the delivery of sustainable growth on land under a single ownership can meet not only Henley-in-Arden’s but Stratford’s economic and social needs for the next decade and beyond.
Lapworth station although a station in name does not operate a frequent rail service. (This is easily verifiable with google) trains every two hours at most frequent from Solihull or Birmingham aligned to the fact that the rail services are unreliable and the long term viability of infrequently used stations is at threat. It is only accessible by footpath for about half the village. This is a wholly inappropriate consideration for Kingswood / Lapworth and will clearly result in all new residents having to be car owners. The secondary school provision is poor with Solihull schools (which are closer) being out of catchment and Henley School being a significant distance away. There is no footpath through the main street in Lapworth meaning pedestrians are at risk of RTA's whenever they walk through the village. Focus should be on better use of already developed land rather than building more greenbelt developments. It is clear that building on green field sites is a cheaper options for developers and easier from a local planning point of view but there are significant areas of brownfield land which should be developed to provide more affordable houses within the areas where people can work. This will ultimately benefit the local area by providing more affordable houses without the need to deliver extra infrastructure (rail roads and busses) and by not destroying the countryside with more developments that can only realistically be accessed by car drivers. Development of our towns should be the priority rather than joining up our villages with development, this is the only option that delivers a sustainable future.
While the rail corridor approach may be suitable, new locations should be considered outside the greenbelt. If a new settlement of 6,000 dwellings south of Leamington spa, outside the green belt, can support a new station along the existing rail line this would also open up possibilities for other smaller settlements with decent public transport links around the same location, whereas at present possible areas for development are disproportionately focused on the greenbelt north of Leamington spa despite this only accounting for less than 1/3rd of the total area of the combined districts. Land to the South-east of Leamington meets the requirements for rail access (even if this would require a new station) and there are such a large number of sites proposed in non-green belt land to the South and East of Leamington that there surely cannot be the required justification to promote new settlements in the green belt. Some of these sites are included in the "proposed locations" but not shown as indicative sites within this option. These locations, outside the greenbelt, should be considered as preferable to greenbelt sites.
Rail is inflexible for customers. Driverless and electric cars on-call are the real future as flexible, environmentally-friendly, will reduce private car ownership and usage and need for carparking spaces. Rail is 19th century technology
New settlements will need to be part of the overall housing strategy if South Warwickshire are able to meet their own housing needs as well as any potential need to take numbers from the Birmingham HMA, and well as the overall Warwickshire HMA. It is clear from Figure 2 in the Issues and Options Document that the northern part of the area is constrained by the Green Belt, and covers most of the undeveloped land within Warwick DC. Stratford DC currently has very little Green Belt but has an overall Open Countryside policy which looks to restrict development. It makes sense therefore for new settlements to be located in areas of Stratford and the South of the area, where there is little Green Bet restriction. New settlements together with the growth of existing settlements and larger Villages is a more comprehensive approach to meeting the housing numbers required. The HEDNA provides information on market demand from local agents which demonstrated that within Warwick and Stratford the demand for family homes is outstripping supply with a minimum of 3 bedrooms wanted, with up to 30% of buyers relocating from London looking for larger homes and more garden space. Generally, in these location there is less demand for flats, with Leamington have some demand for town centre living. Whilst the NPPF and the SWLP principle of ‘brownfield first’ it is clear that the demand for more traditional family homes with a driveway and a garden is outstripping supply, and these types of dwellings can realistically only be delivered where there is space; something which is limited in town centres or the majority of brownfield sites. New Settlements have the ability to provide the dwellings which people want to live in proving the infrastructure they need as they move in. This position is further supported by the Urban Capacity Study, which has concluded that there are not enough sites within the urban boundaries of the existing towns and settlements to meet the housing required, regardless of the method used to calculate the housing numbers. Option for Growth 1 looks at providing a number of new settlements based on the existing rail corridor. One of these corridors is between Leamington and Banbury which would include railway line which runs to the north of Harbury. The proposed new settlement at Depper’s Bridge is already supported by the development of the former Harbury cement works which was originally going to provide up to 200 residential units, a 40 Bed Care Facility (Use Class C2), Employment Uses (Use Classes B1/B2 – 6050m2 floorspace), Doctors Surgery (Use Class D1) and creation of nature reserve with associated access and infrastructure. In fact, this development has provided 280 residential units following the grant of planning permission to add 80 dwellings in place of the employment floorspace. However, the new settlements would be exactly that; brand new settlement which would be creating an identity of their own and not seeking to absorb established settlements. The potential new development at Depper’s Bridge would need to ensure that coalescence is not an issue with the established village of Harbury, and should not seek to take away from Harbury. Harbury should as we have set out be required to take some growth from the overall housing numbers, but in doing so should reflect the current nature of development and characteristics.
Having answered above. New settlements need to be in the places where there is least detrimental effect on existing towns and villages. Existing rail corridors are valuable elements for sustainability and environmental protection, but should not over-ride other issues such as the size, style and scale of any development. Henley-in-Arden can accept some small scale development but not large scale.
No answer given
New settlements will need to be part of the overall housing strategy if South Warwickshire are able to meet their own housing needs as well as any potential need to take numbers from the Birmingham HMA, and well as the overall Warwickshire HMA. It is clear from Figure 2 in the Issues and Options Document that the northern part of the area is constrained by the Green Belt, and covers most of the undeveloped land within Warwick DC. Stratford DC currently has very little Green Belt but has an overall Open Countryside policy which looks to restrict development. It makes sense therefore for new settlements to be located in areas of Stratford and the South of the area, where there is little Green Bet restriction. New settlements together with the growth of existing settlements and larger Villages is a more comprehensive approach to meeting the housing numbers required. The HEDNA provides information on market demand from local agents which demonstrated that within Warwick and Stratford the demand for family homes is outstripping supply with a minimum of 3 bedrooms wanted, with up to 30% of buyers relocating from London looking for larger homes and more garden space. Generally, in these location there is less demand for flats, with Leamington have some demand for town centre living. Whilst the NPPF and the SWLP principle of ‘brownfield first’ it is clear that the demand for more traditional family homes with a driveway and a garden is outstripping supply, and these types of dwellings can realistically only be delivered where there is space; something which is limited in town centres or the majority of brownfield sites. New Settlements have the ability to provide the dwellings which people want to live in proving the infrastructure they need as they move in. This position is further supported by the Urban Capacity Study, which has concluded that there are not enough sites within the urban boundaries of the existing towns and settlements to meet the housing required, regardless of the method used to calculate the housing numbers. Option for Growth 1 looks at providing a number of new settlements based on the existing rail corridor. One of these corridors is between Leamington and Banbury which would include railway line which runs to the north of Harbury. As set out above under Question S7.2 Options for Growth, we have already highlighted that the site owned by our client is and can come forward to provide residential and other associated development. The proposed new settlement at Depper’s Bridge is already supported by the development of the former Harbury cement works which was originally going to provide up to 200 residential units, a 40 Bed Care Facility (Use Class C2), Employment Uses (Use Classes B1/B2 – 6050m2 floorspace), Doctors Surgery (Use Class D1) and creation of nature reserve with associated access and infrastructure. In fact, this development has provided 280 residential units following the grant of planning permission to add 80 dwellings in place of the employment floorspace. There are also two sites located directly north of our Site which have already been submitted as part of the first Call for Sites consultation in 2021. These are references 540 which is down as a mixed-use site, which we understand to be owned by Warwickshire County Council, and the site reference 377 which is bounded by Bush Heath Road and Deppers Bridge. These sites together with the site being put forward by the Client provides certainty to the SWLP that a new settlement can be accommodated here and delivered. There are clear opportunities to provide pedestrian and ecological links between our site and the site put forward by WCC as well as the wider site to access nature, and there is no reason why a large settlement in this location can not have connected ‘mini-neighbourhoods’ further utilising the 20minutes neighbourhood concept.
Again I agree that new settlements may be required but these should not be built before the growth in the economy is achieved and none should be on green belt land that has be used with such cavalier abandon as in recent years. Hence A1, B1 and C1 above are unsuitable areas whereas the remainder are suitable.
I feel that the prioritisation of rail corridors may offer a sensible option for development. There is substantial scope to include development alongside rail corridors outside of the greenbelt. I feel development alongside rail corridors to the South of the region, explicitly avoiding greenbelt development should be supported. The plan outlines that an indicative 6000 new homes would be sufficient to support a new rail station, and there are ample geographical options to achieve this outside of the greenbelt. Additionally, this would reduce the likelihood of overcrowding existing areas/stations in locations with existing stations in the Greenbelt. Development in North Leamington is not appropriate to use Leamington Spa station as there is already heavy traffic congestion in people moving from the North to the South of the town. A new station in the greenbelt is unacceptable.
No answer given
No answer given
Long Marston is already being developed - keep developing with usable infrastructure. Long Marston has an existing railway line that could be reinstated which opens up the communting potential, reducing car journeys and emissions.
Extend existing settlements but not excessively.
No answer given
No answer given
Your identification of rail corridors needs to be more accurate. There is no railway line to Kineton (this appears to be a glaring error which reduces my confidence in the SWLP). Other climate change issues should also be considered when looking at new locations for development,
Following the impact of the pandemic on working patterns and commuting, including the large increase in the numbers of people who are now working from home, the future of rail travel seems to be very unclear at the moment. The scaling back of HS2, the under-usage of Kenilworth Station, and lower passenger numbers generally on Chiltern Railways suggests that this should be given careful consideration before shaping a whole strategy. An approach should be adopted that safeguards the Green Belt from further loss while expanding those settlements where land is available with good transport links and which have a range of existing services which can be expanded as needed e.g. retail, education, and health. None of the five strategic growth approaches do this.
Electric buses and cars, electric trains but don't make rail corridors as an excuse to build more houses in small villages causing more not less problems,