Q-S10: Please add any comments you wish to make about the development distribution strategy for South Warwickshire

Growth of existing settlements should only be considered where it does not require development in the greenbelt. Previous growth of existing settlements in non-greenbelt locations should not prevent further development and infrastructure should be invested to support further non-greenbelt development. Where growth of existing settlements cannot be assured without using greenbelt land, alternative solutions should be considered that do not involve development in greenbelt land.

Concerning arguments 1, 5 and 6, greenbelt constraints should trump the need for local housing, hence land in the North Leamington Green Belt should not be developed under any circumstances. Protecting the green belt is important to keep the separate identity of distinct settlements and prevent Leamington being subsumed into Greater Coventry, as well as the increasingly desperate need for recreational space for residents in open nature.

Heritage assessment Wootton Wawen settlement Development of larger groups of housing is better suited to local towns not villages, where the infrastructure is available and brownfield sites are more available. Wootton undertook a survey of residents’ views on development within the village in 2015 leading to a conclusion that the village accepted very limited development of new housing and nothing that would alter the character of the village. My view remains aligned to that survey. Wootton is an attractive village retaining many of the characteristics of its rural location with a good stock of heritage assets in its buildings. It is relatively small, at approximately 350 houses (excluding the park home site behind Wootton Hall). Development of large numbers of housing will fundamentally alter the village, to its detriment; the village can only support very limited development or replacing/upgrading housing stock ie in the region of up to 25 houses in the period up to 2050.

My concern with this would be that areas would need to expand into the greenbelt and become over-crowded putting more strain on services. It would also mean some of the openness of the area would be lost to more housing. New areas such as Warwick Gates have shown creating new developments and schools, health centres etc are good ways of providing homes.

[RE growth of existing settlements] Bishops Tachbrook should not grow anymore. We already have 3 primary schools and a secondary school in one small village. Not enough information has been given in this consultation document of what growth might mean for each of these settlements, only examples. People cannot make a decision based on the information provided. Also, it's not a all yes or all no question. There should be options for which ones are yes and which ones are no. The question is too binary and forces people to say yes because it's reasonable that some may grow. But there isn't enough sophistication in the questions to answer with those nuances.

[RE Q-S4.1 growth of existing settlements] My response to the above is NO because I do not believe that Green Belt land should be built on to grow existing settlements. Growth should be achieved first through brownfield development. Development should be based on a realistic housing needs figure and the Local Plan should recognise that Green Belt land does not have to be built on if that is the only way of achieving this figure.

[RE Q-S4.1 growth of existing settlements] As per previous answers the growth of existing settlements where there were brownfield sites should be allowed and encouraged, but the growth of existing settlements in to areas of greenfield should be prevented. This question does not allow respondents to specify these simple conditions, so I have replied 'No'.

I would support the growth of existing settlements, but only if there is no impact on the Greenbelt.

Growth will be necessary but should be supported by a locally agreed housing needs analysis which reflects national policy. Land in North Leamington Green Belt should not be developed because local authorities are not expected to meet local housing need where there are genuine constraints including green belt constraints. Similar developments of the Green Belt in North Leamington have been rejected less than six year ago. The planning Inspectors response in 2017 to the current local plan for Warwick District states that there 'is a need to maintain the separate identity of surrounding villages of Leek Wootton and Cubbington and avoid significant reductions in the gap to Kenilworth'. (p18. para 91). It also states that: 'Development of the land in question would involve a substantial expansion of the built up area into currently open countryside to the north of Leamington Spa. It would have a significant adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the character and appearance of the area', (p34 para 201). In recent years our area has also experienced the loss of countryside, farmland and wildlife habitat for the construction of HS2, I feel we need to protect the remaining Green Belt due to its contribution to the openess of the countryside, food production, biodiversity and the health and well-being of our community as a whole.

Growth of existing settlements should only be considered where it does not require development in the greenbelt. Further growth of existing settlements in non-greenbelt locations should be encouraged and where necessary infrastructure should be improved to support this. Where growth of existing settlements cannot be secured without using greenbelt land, alternative solutions should be considered that do not involve development in greenbelt land, e.g. brownfield sites.

There has been significant expansion outwards of some smaller settlements under the 2000 and 2006 Stratford District Local Plans and the 2016 Stratford District Core Strategy. These have been in some cases harmful to that settlement, adding development out of keeping with its traditional form, and without adequate services in some cases. The expansion westwards of Shipston-on-Stour onto higher ground has been the most damaging. Additions to Kineton, a large village whose Conservation Area has the character of a small town, should not go any further to avoid damage to its historic character and attractive ambience. Wellesbourne and Southam have seen substantial new housing, despite being vin locations with low sustainability (no rail service in either case) and they can't expand further without loss of countryside around them. There is some scope for more dense development within these settlements, which would be best achieved by windfalls, not by seeking to allocate any sites witthin them. Settlements which are surrounded by Green Belt (they are 'Insets' in the Green Belt) should be able to develop more housing within their boundaries by windfalls, but not to expand outwards by changing the Green Belt boundary around them. Studley, Henley-in-Arden, Hampton Magna and Hatton Park are the main examples.

Only to be considered where does not require development in Greenbelt. Previous growth of existing settlements in non greenbelt locations should not prevent further development and infrastructure would be invested to support further non greenbelt development. Where growth of existing settlements cannot be assured without using greenbelt, alternatives should be considered that do not involve building in greenbelt.

Yes, growth of existing settlements in South Warwickshire (and on the edge of South Warwickshire) is imperative to deliver the overall growth targets, and achieve the Vision and overarching principles. The need for housing, affordable and specialist housing, jobs, green infrastructure, improved facilities and infrastructure is within the towns and villages. Those needs are best met sustainably adjacent to the larger sustainable settlements.

The proposals to the north of Leamington within the greenbelt will fully join Blackdown and Old Milverton into Leamington. The purpose of the greenbelt is to prevent this from happening. Building on greenbelt should not be considered just because the housing number cannot easily be found on other land classifications.

Yes, growth of existing settlements in South Warwickshire is imperative to deliver the overall growth targets, and achieve the Vision and overarching principles. The need for housing, affordable and specialist housing, jobs, green infrastructure, improved facilities and infrastructure are all generated within the existing settlements. Those needs are best met sustainably adjacent to the settlements, rather than in new settlements.

Henley in Arden apparently has a projected 500-2000 homes in the SWLP. This growth is very much out of proportion with the existing size of the local population. Henley is certainly unsuitable for growth over 500 houses due to flood risk, poor infrastructure (sewage and drainage at capacity, schools and GP services full, congested road, scanty train and bus services) additionally Henley has already far exceeded the projected settlement growth planned up to 2031 in the Henley Neighbourhood Plan. More information needs to be collated to inform the SWLP how much additional housing Henley could reasonably absorb, with or without improvements in infrastructure

Yes, growth of existing settlements in South Warwickshire is imperative to deliver the overall growth targets, and achieve the Vision and overarching principles. The need for housing, affordable housing, green infrastructure, improved facilities and infrastructure is within the towns and villages. Those needs are best met sustainably adjacent to the settlements.

Growth will be necessary but should be supported by a locally agreed housing needs analysis which reflects national policy. The current proposal is not in line with current Government policy. The Government has recently asserted that local planning authorities are not expected to review the Green Belt to deliver housing. (See letter from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities.) Changes to the National Planning Policy Framework mean that the estimated figure for Local Housing Need is “no more than” a starting point and “importantly, that areas will not be expected to meet this need where they are subject to genuine constraints”. The utility of the Green Belt around North Leamington is a genuine constraint on development. There are positive reasons for protecting the Green Belt and any development would be costly and detrimental overall.

Yes, there can be limited development of existing settlements, using space over business in the town centres, brown field site development BUT green lung and tree planting must be part of this intensification for air quality, mental well being and bio diversity. The problem is an further growth increases traffic as we do not have opportunities for safe walking and cycling and certainly do not have a viable public transport system. This is a rural District that requires local, town based public transport to facilitate the 15 mins town or public transport between Warwickshire towns, the region and beyond. Without some resolution to public transport we are stuck with growing car use.

Yes, growth of existing settlements in South Warwickshire is imperative to deliver the overall growth targets, and achieve the Vision and overarching principles. The need for housing, affordable and specialist housing, jobs, green infrastructure, improved facilities and infrastructure is within the towns and villages. Those needs are best met sustainably adjacent to the settlements.

Growth should be supported by a locally agreed housing needs analysis. There are lots of positive reasos for protecting the reen Belt and any development would be costly and detrimental overall.

Further development of existing settlements should be directed to those settlements that already have good quality services and the ability to expand those services to accommodate such growth to villages/hamlets within the 20 minute radius. Further development of existing settlements should also take into account the recent development in those locations so that the rate of expansion of a settlement over a time period which includes recent history is limited to allow time for settlements to grow at a sustainable pace for social cohesion. We would refer to Wellesbourne and Shipston on Stour specifically where the ability to provide services such as doctors, schools to the surrounding areas has been outpaced by the rate of development

Yes, growth of existing settlements in South Warwickshire is imperative to deliver the overall growth targets, and achieve the Vision and overarching principles. The need for housing, affordable and specialist housing, jobs, green infrastructure, improved facilities and infrastructure is within the towns and villages. Those needs are best met sustainably adjacent to the settlements.

Yes, growth of existing settlements in South Warwickshire is imperative to deliver the overall growth targets, and achieve the Vision and overarching principles. The need for housing, affordable and specialist housing, jobs, green infrastructure, improved facilities and infrastructure is within the towns and villages. Those needs are best met sustainably adjacent to the settlements.

[RE growth of existing settlements] Market Towns of sufficient size to become a complete and compact 20-minute neighbourhood - 100%. Investment in the infrastructure for active travel should be prioritsed before any development is given green light. This way people will know what they get when they buy a particular dwelling.

Yes, growth of existing settlements in South Warwickshire is imperative to deliver the overall growth targets, and achieve the Vision and overarching principles. The need for housing, affordable and specialist housing, jobs, green infrastructure, improved facilities and infrastructure is within the towns and villages. Those needs are best met sustainably adjacent to the settlements.

Yes, growth of existing settlements in South Warwickshire (and on the edge of South Warwickshire) is imperative to deliver the overall growth targets, and achieve the Vision and overarching principles. The need for housing, affordable and specialist housing, jobs, green infrastructure, improved facilities and infrastructure are all generated within the existing settlements. Those needs are best met sustainably adjacent to the settlements, rather than in new settlements.

Yes, growth of existing settlements in South Warwickshire is considered to be imperative to deliver the overall growth targets, and achieve the Vision and overarching principles. Further, growth of existing settlements will support the sustainability and vitality of existing services, providing support to existing communities, which in turn has the potential to enhance placemaking and sustainability. Whilst the potential for new settlements in South Warwickshire is recognised, they will not ensure delivery of growth in the early part of the Plan period or sustain and enhance the vitality and sustainability of existing settlements. The need for housing, affordable and specialist housing, jobs, green infrastructure, improved facilities and infrastructure is within the towns and villages; those needs cannot be directly met sustainably in isolated settlements.

Safeguarded land, south of Westwood Heath Road/ Featherbed Lane and within Coventry City Council, should be considered for future housing or mixed development (sympathetic to St John's Church which is grade II listed) as part of the SWLP for adjoining land, as it is a very sustainable location, meeting the 20 minute neighbourhood principle.