Q-S5.2: Do you think new settlements should be part of the overall strategy?
Any future new settlement should be situated close to existing transport options and minimal new road construction. The rail line is the obvious spine to develop new settlements. This will mean reconsideration of the Green Belt. The current thinking has placed new settlements, admittedly on a brown field site, but a site well away from viable transport roots. The result is a major problem. Development to the South of SoA is funnelling traffic across an historic bridge (circa 1192?) and an inadequate 19th Cent ex railway bridge. The 'solution' is a wildly expensive bridge, with no cycle provision, impacting on residents' well being across an historic water meadow and SSI. I hope this 50 year LP will build in some proper time for planning and consultation. Sensible development of space above shops and businesses in town centres should be a policy. In conservation areas there should be a presumption to build if the building cannot be seen / disrupt the sky line in an unacceptable manner.
No. Upgrades required to a regulated, fragmented and broken rail network system are unrealistic. HS2 has had all the funding available.
No answer given
Terra agree in part that rail corridors should be considered. As part of the previous consultation on the Scoping Document, the Councils put forward a number of Growth Options for the industry to respond to, which included the below: • Option A: Rail Corridors • Option B: Main Bus Corridors • Option C: Main Road Corridors • Option D: Enterprise Hubs • Option E: Socio Economic • Option F: Main Urban Areas • Option G: Dispersed Terra still contend that the Councils should incorporate the benefits of each growth option to suitably meet the requirements of the merged district. Whilst Terra agree that, in a climate emergency, focusing on rail corridors as a preferred approach could reduce reliance on private car use through sustainable transport planning, focusing solely on Rail Corridors limits the growth option and could potentially neglect the needs of the entire district, including the rural areas. This is particularly as large areas within the district do not fall within the identified rail corridors. The Council should ensure that they explore all options for providing new infrastructure along the existing rail lines if this is to be the main focus. Land to the east of Junction 12, M40 is in close proximity to an existing railway line (Banbury – Leamington line and the Kineton – Fenny Compton line). If this site is identified for a new settlement, this could include provision of a new station in close proximity along the existing rail lines. If the rail corridor option is carried forward as the preferred option, this should also be balanced with improving other forms of sustainable transport, including bus services or introducing further initiatives, such as the Stratford Greenway. Increasing connectivity and opportunities for active travel not only encourages healthier living, but also increase a scheme’s sustainability and future proofing of developments. This is particularly important as the rail system can be unreliable and is not always the most convenient mode of travel. Further, many areas within the district fall outside of a rail corridor.
Q S5.3 & 5.4 In response to the climate change emergencies, we are looking at rail corridors as a preferred approach to identifying potential locations. Do you agree? 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.
No answer given
Q-S5.3 – Rail Corridors. 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 is 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. The Climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land, this is a weak argument as there are other ways of mitigating against the climate emergency without developing on greenbelt.
Q-S5.3 – Rail Corridors: 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 Climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land, this is a weak argument as there are other ways of mitigating against the climate emergency without developing on greenbelt.
No answer given
It is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement on greenbelt land as there are no exceptional circumstances that would justify doing so. It is therefore unacceptable to consider multiple new locations for settlements, as shown in the current consultation document, which run counter to the NPPF principles. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be on non-greenbelt land, as there are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. New infrastructure can be developed to support non-greenbelt sites and this is also likely to be easier to deliver, because of its likely proximity to existing infrastructure.
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
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.
Q-S5.2 - New Settlements: 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.
Q-S5.2 - New Settlements: It is unacceptable to plan to build within the greenbelt, there are no reasons where this should be considered, they are greenbelt for reason to protect land never to be built on.
Q-S5.2 – New settlements: I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are no 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.
A reference to 'Land North East of Knightcote' has been added to the 'Erratum – 6th February 2023'. This was also labelled incorrectly as GLH. This seems to have been 'snook' in at last minute and I would strongly question the motive behind this. Development NE of Knightcote is absurd on the basis that this area is one the only remaining rural, agricultural areas of high biodiversity value. There is no justification for development here and the erroneous detail, last minute addition and lack of information on this site should exclude it completely. It has been added due to proximity to a railway line (any suggestion of a rural station here on the busy London line is non-sensical) or perhaps by some other questionable influence.
Don’t know. In principle, a ‘rail corridor’ growth option seems to be an appropriate preferred approach to identifying potential locations for new settlements as this should, in theory, help to reduce commuting-related greenhouse gas emissions. However, the climate change emissions estimation for the potential new settlements indicates that the ‘rail corridor’ growth option doesn’t perform any better than the ‘economy’ growth option or the ‘sustainable travel’ growth option and it performs worse than the ‘sustainable travel and economy’ option. From the information provided in Table 2 of the emissions estimates report11, it would seem that this is because the ‘rail corridor’ growth option doesn’t perform as well in terms of delivering 20-minute neighbourhoods (although it is equal best in reducing car trips). Overall, the ‘sustainable travel and economy’ growth option appears to deliver the most benefits out of the five growth options with regards to mitigating the impacts of climate change, including: •The smallest quantity of greenhouse gas emissions. •The equal best reduction in car trips. •The equal best uptake of 20-minute neighbourhoods. •Highest electric vehicle uptake. •Higher retrofit and on-site renewables. Rail corridors would presumably still form part of this ‘sustainable travel and economy’ growth option. If Long Marston is prioritised through this process, consideration will need to be given to the potential impacts of development, including cumulative impacts, on views from (and to) the Cotswolds National Landscape, particularly with regards to views from public rights of way on Meon Hill. Consideration would also need to be given to the extent to which the close proximity of a new transport hub, such as a new railway station at Meon Vale or Long Marston Airfield, might increase development pressures within the Cotswolds National Landscape and its setting. In this regard, we recommend that development at Meon Vale should not: • Extend into the Cotswolds National Landscape. • Extend east of the B4632. • Coalesce with Lower Quinton. • Extend south of the current southern limit of development at Meon Vale. 11 Stratford-on-Avon District Council and Warwick District Council (2022) South Warwickshire Local Plan – estimation of emissions for proposed growth options and new settlements. Prepared by Arup.
Any new settlements should have appropriate cycle and public transport infrastructure. They should have community spaces, schools, shops, doctors etc allocated as part of the plan. Not just some S106 money.
Hatton Station would be a top choice location as it is served by local, regional and national rail services and could foreseeably become a key interchange. The canal also provides a ready made leisure cycle route to Warwick that could be widened and surfaced easily.
Assuming that if you build a new settlement at Deppers Bridge everyone will mostly travel by train is a complete phallacy. Most residents will continue to use cars on poorly supported local road infrastructure, increasing local road pollution. In rural locations, climate should not override more immediate concerns such as access to local services such as schools and GPs.
Rail prices are too high, therefore people generally use alternative transport. Therefore, this aspect of the emissions estimation will need additional thought before it is included as a viable aspect of reducing emissions.