Q-S5.2: Do you think new settlements should be part of the overall strategy?
No answer given
Explanation of response to S5.3: It would be ideal to have a railway station in a new settlement, so long as it is part of a broad strategy to encourage its use and so reduce car journeys. However, we are sceptical that this will be effective and it is far more important to design the settlement to provide enough facilities so residents choose to travel/ commute less frequently beyond the settlement. Explanation of response to S5.2: The proposal to build new settlement(s) in south Warwickshire of the ‘large village’ type might enable people to live, study, work and and relax within their communities thereby strengthening them. If carefully designed, these settlements could embody 20 minute neighbourhood principles. Such design should permit high housing density in the centres and exceed the suggested 40 dwellings per hectare, thus protecting the rest of the area from urban sprawl and unnecessary loss of greenfields. Therefore, this is probably the least-worst way to provide for the huge numbers of new homes mandated by central government.
The potential for a new settlement at Harbury is noted, and F1 (North of Harbury) performs relatively well compared to the other options in the SA. F1 is indicatively shown in the SA as a broad area, but clearly the size and location of growth at Harbury would need to be explored in more detail if this area were to be identified to accommodate significant growth in order to support a new rail station. Bloor Homes have therefore submitted with these representations a Wider Masterplan showing how circa 1,000 homes and associated land uses and green infrastructure could be accommodated within the entire area of land put forward through the call for sites (site 377). Whilst this site in isolation would not support a rail station, it clearly could form a component of a larger site including land north of Harbury which delivers 6,000 dwellings, or one of a number of different sites in the nearby villages and towns (including Gaydon and Southam) that cumulatively deliver up to 6,000 dwellings. This larger proposal using all of site 377 could therefore form an important component should the Councils decide F1 should be part of their growth strategy taken forward in the Plan.
No answer given
Unless the railway service provides a station and has a regular connection service (every half hour at peak times) both north to Leamington/Birmingham and south to Banbury/London then this would not work. also the current employment hubs, J12 and Southam do not have railway access. The new development at GLH is at least near to J12 and employment hubs, so new potential sites should be only considered where there is already a good road access and employment possibilities.
MacMic Group are of the view that new settlements should not form part of the strategy for dealing with South Warwickshire’s development growth needs, due to concerns regarding lead-in terms, infrastructure requirements, viability and market attractiveness. However, the expansion of existing settlements where there are opportunities to capitalise on existing benefits that new settlements are striving for should be considered. This would need to be supported by the allocation of sites which are deliverable in the short-term in sustainable locations, such as adjacent to Kingswood. This will help maintain and enhance the vitality and sustainability of existing settlements and deliver the need for housing, affordable and specialist housing, jobs, green infrastructure, improved facilities and infrastructure within the towns and villages where such needs exist. With regard to the potential new settlement C1 south of Kingswood, it is considered that this site is too close to Lapworth Railway Station to warrant growth of 6,000 dwellings to facilitate a new Railway Station. Whilst potential new settlement C1 could come forward and deliver significant infrastructure including a Primary School and Secondary School, MacMic Group consider that a standalone new settlement south of Kingswood would not maximise the significant benefit that the existing Lapworth Railway Station has to offer. As such, MacMic Group consider that, should significant growth in this location be considered appropriate, the focus should be the existing settlement of Kingswood and a significant expansion of the village in order to maximise the offer of Lapworth Railway Station. This would allow the delivery of significant growth to meet the needs of South Warwickshire in a location well related to conurbation with unmet needs supported by the provision of significant new infrastructure, whilst maximising the potential and also sustaining the existing Lapworth Railway Station.
Yes if a new settlement is proposed it is critical that it is rail served.
I oppose such new developments.
Stop building.
No answer given
Rail is inflexible for users and subject to external pressures such as government franchises, strikes etc. Most local stations such as Lapworth have infrequent stopping services, small car parks (14 car spaces) and this does not provide an adequate service for the elderly or young. We believe that the advent of electric vehicles and autonomous cars will prove more effective to achieving safe and inclusive transport equality in the more rural areas of South Warwickshire. We consider a hybrid approach focusing on a variety of transport and economy based options the most appropriate option. We note that the summary in table 6 for Lapworth is very misleading - the M40 SRN is accessed via a series of narrow B and C roads unsuited for heavy traffic constrained by rail and canal bridges many of which are listed. No mention is made of the ancient woodland in the area (and ? ancient hedgerows. The existing area has poor street lighting, narrow or non existing pavements
We are not against the principle of new settlements but the history of most of those that have been delivered, are being delivered are yet to be delivered, shows that they require significant levels of upfront investment and take a long time to commence and be delivered. New settlements are normally only successful where there are a very small number of landowners and so issues with land assembly do not prevent sites being delivered. It is critical that if new settlements are going to be part of the strategy, they must be proven to be viable, deliverable, accessible and sustainable. We would only support the inclusion of a new settlement(s) as part of the preferred option if combined with the growth of existing settlements. Existing settlements are supported by existing infrastructure and are inherently more sustainable and can be delivered quicker than new settlements, thus securing the delivery of housing, jobs and infrastructure in the earlier stages of the Local Plan. If a new settlement is proposed it is critical that it is rail served.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS IN SUPPORT: The development of new settlements has the potential to unlock major sustainability benefits, ‘consuming their own smoke’ in terms of provision of facilities to support new homes, offering the potential to fund major infrastructure improvements and public transport investment and minimising impact on existing settlements. The plan period to 2050 is a good opportunity to plan for new settlements, which would be delivered over a longer time span. Locating new settlements on rail corridors, where good quality rail connections exist and can be supported by additional patronage, has the strongest potential to address the climate change emergency. This should be the preferred approach and it should be ensured that new housing is located where residents can walk to the railway station. In particular, growth to the north of Kingswood offers great potential to respond to the climate change emergency as the settlement is one of the few with a ‘Major Positive Impact’ score in the Sustainability Appraisal Table 5.1 in terms of accessibility and the north of Kingswood in particular scores the highest in terms of connectivity in the Connectivity Analysis.
Noise pollution for one reason. Why does there need to be new settlements unless the local community request it? SDC & WDC wanting more Council Tax income at any cost without thinking about infrastructure needs and the impact on existing adjacent communities
Following examination of alternatives
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
Building next to existing Railway stations is an option, but need to be not be the only thing to look at. Land around railway stations are not necesarily suitable for building houses. Specifically need to consider impact on existing properties from flooding risk perspective and also infrastructure being able to support. In Wootton Waven specifically: the land next to Railway station has a steep slope which currently in heavy rain speeds down the hill and down Wavensmere Road, with already a risk of flooding to properties on this road. Building on this land will increase the flooding risk to an unacceptable level. Therefore each site needs to be carefully considered. There are more appropriate sites for example in Wootton Waven, which are better suited and does not have the same risks of increasing flooding associated with it.
Look at extending or adapting the rail link to DM Kineton (Section G) to the new town in Kineton.
No answer given
If it takes the pressure of the smaller settlements, New settlements could be designed to have all the infrastructure to become sustainable developemnts.
New settlements seem important for keeping existing settlements small enough for a 20 minute town strategy, including walking to shops, work and green spaces. Building on the edge of existing settlements may make new homes closer to existing town centres, but extends the reach of roads and housing and makes others too far from green spaces.
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.
The areas identified in the railway corridors are not necessarily within easy walking distance of a station. In principle, a new settlement could be developed near to an existing railway station with purpose built facilities including cycle paths and bus routes so that commuters were able to use trains, following the example of countries such as Holland. Presumably most commuters within the South Warwickshire area will want to travel to Birmingham, Coventry and London. Investigation into which railway stations provide the most frequent trains and where they are going to would be useful. For example, Hatton station currently only has a train to Birmingham once every 2 hours, but trains from Warwick Parkway currently go approximately twice an hour to Birmingham.
I do not think that new settlements should be considered within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. If a new settlement is to be considered it should only be in non green belt land. I feel that the prioritisation of rail corridors may offer a sensible option for development. A new station in the greenbelt would be unacceptable. The climate emergency should not be used as a justification to develop on greenbelt land. There are other ways of mitigating against the climate emergency.
In relation to S5.2 The consideration of new settlements which would involve the development of green belt land is unacceptable. It appears to be inconsistent with the NPPF principle of exceptionality which should operate at every stage of the planning and evaluation process.
The report submitted by CPRE Warwickshire identifies that the housing supply is underestimated because windfalls and some other urban development will be higher than the amount that the Issues & Options is based on. The need for new settlements of any kind is less than the I&O suggests. The actual picture is that there are partial new settlements in the adopted Stratford Core Strategy which have made only limited progress. These are Meon Vale (Long Marston Depot or LMD), Long Marston Airfield (LMA), and Gaydon-Lighthorne Heath (GLH). There are two 'half-settlements close to each other, both approved for some development, Meon Vale and LMA. The Core Strategy in 2015-16 mistakenly failed to promote and allocate a single new settlement (LMD) and instead has ended up with two half-size settlements. This should be remedied by reducing LMA to what has detailed planning permission and focussing on LMD which has the scope for a full range of services if made larger. LMD is suitable for a rail service (it has a line); LMA is much more difficult to serve by rail. GLH has hardly started development, and is supposed to have 3,000 houses. There is no case for any more new settlements. Rail corridors as presented as a Growth Option do not make sense. Some of the lines are in the Green Belt; they serve villages in the Green Belt but these locations are unsuitable as expanded or new settlements. The rail corridor that should be developed is from Coventry to Honeybourne on the Cotswold Line, with stations at Warwick University, Kenilworth (now open), Milverton (reopen), Leamington, Warwick, Wilmcote, Warwick Parkway, Stratford Parkway, Stratford-upon-Avon, and Long Marston, and at Honeybourne continuing to Evesham and Worcester. The sections now single-track should be doubled and the missing section between Stratford and Long Marston reinstated. This route would link up the main urban centres in the SWLP area and enable the best-located new settlement under way (Meon Vale / LMD) to develop effectively.
No answer given
The variance in the cumulative carbon emission figures between each of the options is so low that the proximity to a railway station should be discounted. In terms of economic growth it would be far more important to be near good road transport links