Q-S10: Please add any comments you wish to make about the development distribution strategy for South Warwickshire
Nurton Developments (Loes Farm) Ltd objects to the fact that, other than Warwick Parkway, Warwick has not been listed in any of the growth options as a settlement that would receive growth. This is an inappropriate strategy which fails to consider one of the main settlements of the area as a whole, in terms of its sustainability and potential for growth. Instead it just focuses on one side of the settlement. Warwick Parkway lies to the west of the settlement, in an area that has been identified as harmful in the Heritage and Settlement Sensitivity Assessment, and that assessment recommends that development in that area should be avoided. Therefore, alternative options to developing to the west of Warwick must be considered. The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) paragraph 4.16.33 identifies that Warwick as a settlement performs well against SA Objective 13, due to all Broad Locations having good access to employment opportunities. It finds that this would have a minor positive impact on the local economy as it is within the sustainable target distance to various business and employment opportunities. Therefore, Warwick should be considered as a whole to ensure that such positive impacts are maximised where possible. As discussed in our response to Q-S4.2, the area to the north of Warwick has the best connectivity (in terms of local facilities within 800m) and accessibility of any sector around Warwick. Conversely, the area to the west of Warwick has the worst connectivity of any of the Broad Locations and development there would lead to a major adverse impact on transport. Therefore, limiting the consideration of growth potential for Warwick to the area west of Warwick would fail to take advantage of the best connectivity and accessibility and would lead to unsustainable outcomes. While all opportunities and constraints must be looked at in the round, it is submitted that connectivity and accessibility should be given particular priority if the climate change emergency is to be addressed and 20-minute neighbourhood principles are to be pursued.
The green belt should be preserved for the health and well being for local residents and the preservation of wildlife and to provide a natural boundary between towns and villages and to prevent urban sprawl. I object to any proposals to change green belt boundaries and all other options outside of the green belt should be fully examined.
The South Warwickshire Local Plan Process should fully examine all other options, including new settlement options outside of the Green Belt, before starting a study to review Green Belt boundaries in South Warwickshire.
We should protect what green belt we have left and use non green belt for development. It is essential to do this for the sake of our environment and the animals living there. Building in these areas would result in the demolition of sites where animals and insects live and this in the end would be to the disadvantage of those people living in the area and in the UK.
The South Warwickshire Local Plan Process should fully examine all other options, including new settlement options outside the Green Belt, before starting a study to review Green Belt boundaries in South Warwickshire. An area should maintain its Green Belt status if it meets any one of the 5 purposes of Green Belt, as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework.
Local need prioritisation. Pollution.. noise, light & air must be measured and estimated. No more building alongside motorways. Infrastructure first!! Integrated transport systems. Too much is dependent on use of the car. Nothing about cycleways SWLP chasing income through Council Tax and ignoring local community needs.
Firstly, we feel strongly that Burton Green village should not have any further housing developments, the recent Burrow Hill development and the Westwood Heath Road development are already putting traffic pressure on the small village and its woefully inadequate road network. All entrance roads into the village, Cromwell Lane, Hob Lane, Hodgetts Lane and Red Lane are all narrow and inadequate to accommodate even the present level of traffic and the narrow bridge on Cromwell Lane and the double set of S bends on Red Lane are frankly dangerous and with any more traffic unsustainable and unworkable. We understand there are more development sites off Cromwell Lane which will further exacerbate this situation and present severe detriment to the safety in the area. We have experienced several accidents outside our property in Red Lane already. Sites should be chosen close to a divided highway or dual carriageway road able to take the inevitable extra traffic that further housing brings or on a arterial road with bus links into the neighbouring cities. Furthermore, the small school in Burton green is up to capacity already. Sites put forward off Red Lane, Burton Green, should be rejected immediately for these reasons stated. Furthermore, the site put forward on back land behind the properties on Red Lane should be discarded as there could be no safe access and the detriment to the area unreasonable in the light of the HS2 intrusion in the village which has already caused so much harm.
IMPORTANT NOTE - Burton Green cannot have any more developments. The village has already been ruined by HS2 through the middle, and had 3 housing development approved in the area over the last few years. The roads are not adequate for any more developments, especially Red Lane, it is a narrow dangerous road and NO development should be considered off Red Lane, they should be disregarded immediately, it would be very dangerous. Sites should be used that are not in villages. The school can take no more, it is only a small village school. The village is up to its MAXIMUM capacity, there must be no more developments in Burton Green.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the South Warwickshire Local plan. I am writing to express my objection to the proposed development at Red Lane, Kenilworth – REFID 237. Firstly, Burton Green has already experienced significant disruption due to the construction of HS2, which runs through the middle of the village. In addition, a large new housing estate, (formally Burrow Hill Nursery), was completed in 2019, adding more than 30% additional houses to the village. Further development would be disproportionate to the size of the village and could have a negative impact on the existing infrastructure and community. Secondly, the HS2 development has already had a major impact on the wildlife in the area, and the proposed site is located only 0.15 mile away from HS2. Any further development could cause further disruption and damage to the already fragile ecosystem. Thirdly, the proposed development is an inappropriate use of backland located within the green belt, which is designated for preservation and protection of the natural environment. Finally, there is no vehicle access to the land, which makes the development impractical and unsustainable. Any attempt to create a vehicular access point would be difficult and would likely have a negative impact on the surrounding area. Therefore, based on the above points, I object to the proposed development at Red Lane, Kenilworth – REFID 237. Regards, Tim Jenkin Meadowside Red Lane Burton Green CV8 1PB
No consultation question is asked in section 6. I am very surprised, the Local Plan process is flawed because all five spatial growth options presuppose that it is acceptable to develop on Green Belt land. The first three options put a majority of the development on the Green Belt. All five options put forward the North Leamington Green Belt as an appropriate site for development. Importantly, this is not in line with current Government policy which says that Green Belt should be protected and does not have to be released to meet housing need.
Dear Sirs, Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the South Warwickshire Local plan. I am writing to express my objection to the proposed development at Long Meadow Barn Farm, Red Lane, Kenilworth – REFID 563. Firstly, the village has already experienced major disruption due to the construction of HS2, which runs through the middle of the village. In addition, a large new housing estate of over 90 houses, (formally Burrow Hill Nursery), was completed in 2019, adding over 30% additional houses to the village. Further development would be completely disproportionate to the size of the village and would have a negative impact on the existing infrastructure and community. Secondly, the HS2 development has already had a major impact on the wildlife in the area, and the proposed site is located only 0.25 mile away from HS2. Any further development would cause further disruption and damage. Thirdly, the proposed development is an inappropriate use of backland located within the green belt, which is designated for preservation and protection of the natural environment. Finally, Red Lane is already a dangerous road with fast moving traffic and the vehicle access to the land is on sharp bend making access dangerous for all road users. Any attempt to create additional vehicular access points would be difficult and would likely have a negative impact on the surrounding area. Therefore, based on the above points, I object to the proposed development at ,Long Meadow Barn Farm – REFID 563.
The South Warwickshire Plan process must fully examine and exhaust all other options, including all brown field sites and new settlement options outside the Green Belt, before starting a study to review Green Belt boundaries in South Warwickshire.
Greater numbers should be allowed in settlements which have rail and bus connections as the greater the number of houses, the greater the number of users which could in turn lead to more frequent services and more sustainable locations
The opportunities for the next generation to enjoy nature and opportunities on green belt land are increasingly limited. An area should maintain its Green Belt status if it meets 2 or more purposes of green belt land, as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework.
An area should maintain its Green belt status if it meets any ONE of the 5 purposes of Green Belt as defined in the National Planning Policy framework. The Issues and Options consultation is proposing the study considers areas that no longer meet all FIVE of the defined purposes of Green belt which is contrary to NPPF framework. It’s clear that the Green belt status of land around North Leamington Spa performs well in protecting urban sprawl and helps provide clear boundary between leamington and Kenilworth. Land to the south of Leamington Spa, which sits outside the Green belt, has scope to meet housing demand, as well as benefiting from the existing infrastructure upgrade and reinforcement as a result of the current Local plan, any deviation from the current plan would be unworkable because of lack of infrastructure to North Leamington. The local plan should focus on development opportunities outside of the Green belt land so that the special character of the town can be protected.
Whilst accepting that development is necessary, I wish to see greater emphasis given to protecting the existing green belt. Lowering the bar for releasing green belt for development is unacceptable. I do not wish to see North Leamington subjected to the same levels of development as the south of the town.
I am specifically opposed to development of land in the greenbelt areas in and around Weston under Wetherley and other similar small greenbelt villages - development in these areas would change the rural character of the area of the North Leamington Greenbelt - it would affect the rural habitats of the many animals which live here. The rural corridors should remain open and greenbelt preserved. the climate emergency must not be used as a justification to develop on greenbelt land. This is a weak argument and truly harmful. There is not option to comment on issue S6 within the plan (a review of the greenbelt boundaries). This issue should not have been included within the consultation without the option to comment', it is wrong that we are not given the opportunity to comment when all the other sections have questions and opportunities to comment. The number of respondents to the first consultation was exceptionally small and can in no way be considered representative of the population area. I do not feel it is necessary or appropriate to redefine greenbelt boundaries.
why is there no opportunity to comment on Issue S6 (review of green belt boundaries)?
Issue S6 does not invite or provide for comment. There should have been further consultation on such an important issue. The relatively small number of responses to the first consultation provides a poor justification for review of the greenbelt. In any event the terms of the proposed review appear to suggest that greenbelt land must meet all of the green belt purposes. If the review proceeds greenbelt land should continue to be safeguarded if it contributes towards any (not all) of the greenbelt purposes or any of the climate emergency or biodiversity principles or objectives.
It is essential to fully check out all non-Green Belt options, before starting a Green Belt boundary review in this region. I am particularly concerned that any growth in housing stock doesn’t cause a coalescing of dwellings so that there is no countryside buffer between cities, towns and villages in South Warwickshire. In my opinion this would negate many of the aims of the consultation.
This entire section is presented in a disingenuous manner. You refer to “54% of respondents being in support the exploration of growth opportunities in the green belt” but failed to mention that many, if not most, of the respondents you refer to were far from impartial and that many had a vested interest in the development of the land. You have also provided no specific option to object to the use of green belt land. There is nothing in the consultation document or associated reports to justify any change to the five purposes of the green belt designation set out in national policy All of the purposes are as justified now as they were when they were instigated. As explained in my answer to earlier questions the variance in the cumulative carbon emission figures presented in the various reports is so far below the margin of as to be irrelevant in any decision relating to the green belt. None of the arguments put forward in your “what you said” panel are justification for any change to the five principles or even a review. In particular the green belt is essential (and especially so in the case of Leamington Spa and its surrounding towns) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another. The differential between these areas has been eroded too far already. More importantly, there are more than sufficient areas where development can take place without impacting upon the green belt. I therefore object most strongly to any review or changes to the green belt designation.
Development on greenbelt is not part of current government policy. The proposals do not include any of the alternative non-greenbelt options which were explore by planning. Without the greenbelt land, there will be no distinction between Leamington and Kenilworth and the towns risk losing their individual identity.
The South Warwickshire Local Plan Process should fully examine all other options, including new settlement options outside the Green Belt, before starting a study to review Green Belt boundaries in South Warwickshire. An area should maintain its Green Belt status if it meets any one of the 5 purposes of Green Belt, as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework.
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 housing allocations in or adjacent to villages is not established. Recent rates of permission on new sites around some villages beyond the Green Belt in Stratford District have been harmful to the villages, their settings, and the countryside beyond. Windfalls - new houses within village envelopes which meet design criteria and comply with planning policies, and receive permission - are the way in which villages can grow within their limits. A 'dispersal strategy' would also be unsustainable by increasing populations who are dependent on private cars for all travel and accessing services.
The SW local plan should fully look into all other options before reviewing Green Belt boundaries. Please look into the 5 purposes of Green Belt as defined in the national planning policy framework. Stop spoiling our precious countryside when there are so many other options across our District. New homes are needed across the area but they need to be in places that already have infrastructure, roads, energy, schools and shops.
S2. District-wide or lack of policy is not suitable – it needs to be properly planned and agreed by the community…
The JPC considers it absolutely paramount that use of brownfield sites should be maximised. The current situation of such sites lying fallow and developers sprawling over greenfield sites is categorically not acceptable and must change.
Yes to S4.1 but must be properly planned and agreed by a properly informed community.
S5.2 New settlements should PROBABLY be part of the strategy
S6 – Review of GREENBELT policies – YOU DO NOT ASK ANY OPINION? Why not? – the GB policy has probably been the biggest blight on WDC and (presumably SDC) areas over the last few local plan periods. Review of GB policy – locally and nationally is well overdue if our non-GB areas are to survive the housing numbers which will seemingly be imposed on our areas. NOW is the time to make the change!