Q-S5.2: Do you think new settlements should be part of the overall strategy?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
2.10 Response: The Bird Group does not object to the consideration of new settlements as part of the Council’s Growth Option. 2.11 A range of sites varying in scale and size should be explored in order to secure the delivery of new developments. The expansion of existing settlements and new settlements allocated in the Local Plan should also be explored further to see whether there is capacity to be extend these further.
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
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.
In part yes, but as per our response above, we 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. The larger towns such as Alcester also have a variety of services and facilities in close walking distance to their periphery as well as good bus services all of which reduce dependence on the private car and deliver the objective of reducing carbon emissions. The land north of Captain’s Hill also benefits from easy access to the town’s main employment area via sustainable means of travel. Such locations should not be discounted simply because they don’t have railway stations.
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.
No answer given
No answer given
The use of the phrase “climate change emergencies” is a classic example of Group Think. Of course it is sensible to strive towards renewable energy and reduced carbon emissions, but given the present chaotic rush to net zero, in a time scale that will certainly prove to be unattainable, clear thinking and detailed planning is essential at all levels of government…local included. It is not justified to use “Climate Emergency” as a reason to build on Green belt land to slavishly follow such policies as 20 minute settlements. Despite my above statement Rail Corridors do present a sensible option for development that will satisfy some aspects of reducing emissions, but only if we have an efficient workable rail system. Again I would reiterate that Rail Corridor developments should not be in Green belt land. The proposed development alongside rail corridors to the South of the region, outside of Green Belt should be supported.
2.6 Whilst delivery of development with good access to rail is of course a benefit, there is significant risk with an overreliance on this as an integral part of the Plan's strategy. Rail is not an affordable method of transport for many (with further price rises imminent), particularly those who will still require or want to own a private car. This approach therefore risks strategically intensifying development into corridors assuming people will use the train daily, when a vast majority will not. This will result in intensification of use of the road network in a geographically limited area. If this approach is to be found sound, as per the requirements of the NPPF, the Council will need to provide evidence to justify this approach. This will include evidence that a rail orientated pattern of development actually leads to a significant increase in train patronage. If such causality cannot be demonstrated, it is not likely to be justified or effective as a strategic spatial planning strategy.
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.
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: Terra believe that new settlements should be part of the overall strategy. Stratford-on-Avon have successfully delivered new settlements, such as Meon Vale, as part of their previous strategy and the new settlement at Lighthorne Heath/Gaydon is currently in development. Figure 1 demonstrates the location of Land east of Junction 12, M40 which is available for a new settlement. Terra would welcome the Councils to consider this location for providing a new settlement. Q-S5.4: 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.
No answer given