Q-S10: Please add any comments you wish to make about the development distribution strategy for South Warwickshire
1. I am objecting to the potential inclusion of the sites: 1.1. Refid 177 - Land west of Warwick Road, Kenilworth 1.2. Refid 199 - Land East of Rouncil Lane, Kenilworth 1.3. Refid 140 – Land at Oaks Farm, Kenilworth 1.4. Refid 183 - Land South West of Rounds Hill, Kenilworth and any review of the West Midlands Green Belt (WMGB) in this area. 2. The above sites (land) are designated as high quality agricultural land and clearly meet the NPPF’s 5 key purposes of the WMGB designation: 2.1. to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas 2.2. to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another 2.3. to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment 2.4. to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns, and 2.5. to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land In particular the land continues to perform well for its designated purpose as stopping urban sprawl and establishing a clear and open separation between Kenilworth and its neighbouring towns. 3. The conclusions of the WMGB review, “demonstrate that the majority of the Green Belt in Coventry, Nuneaton and Bedworth, Rugby and Warwick continues to serve its purposes very well. In particular it helps to maintain the identity of this part of the West Midlands and to provide opportunities for residents to enjoy the countryside close at hand.” Therefore, the report shows that the WMGB continues to perform well for its intended purposes as defined by National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph138.
Q-S4.1: Do you think that growth of some of our existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy? Yes, the growth of some existing settlements (in particular those identified and assessed as part of the Settlement Design Analysis document) should be part of the overall strategy as it allows us to utilise and enhance existing facilities and infrastructure to create more sustainable places for people to live. Encouraging the well-placed growth of sustainable settlements, such as Royal Leamington Spa Northeast which already boasts a number of public facilities such as public transport and easy access to education, allows us to implement the idea of the 20-minute neighbourhood as any potential development allows existing facilities to be enhanced as well as offering additional facilities such as new health facilities and the provision of additional school places. This would also lead to a reduction in transport related Greenhouse Gas emissions as where development is located close to local services which meet local needs, the need to travel by private car is heavily reduced. As such an allocation on our client’s land would encourage both social and economic growth of the area together with its environmental benefits. Issue S6: A review of Green Belt boundaries As noted in the plan, the Green Belt washes over a vast area of the South Warwickshire plan area including some of its larger settlements such as Kenilworth and Royal Leamington Spa. We agree that settlements such as these are some of the most connected settlements within South Warwickshire to the West Midlands conurbation and the services they have available and as such the South Warwickshire Local Plan should look to allocate land which is within the Green Belt to ensure we are keeping new development connected. While we acknowledge that the Government’s proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework may result in LPA’s no longer being required to release Green Belt land to meet housing need, this should not preclude them from doing so if that is the most sensible option for that authority, and (as commented above) we believe that this is the case in South Warwickshire. Royal Leamington Spa is identified in the settlement analysis as a major town suitable for accommodating 2,000 new homes during the plan period, however, for such growth to take place, some Green Belt land is likely to be released, and therefore this should be accepted proactively by the Local Planning Authority and any assessment of the Green Belt should be undertaken positively. A balance should be struck between Green Belt protection, and the need to allocate sites which lie in the most sustainable locations. We contend that climate change is now a more pressing and important issue than the retention of Green Belt, and that therefore land should be released from Green Belt adjacent to existing towns if it provides housing in locations which minimise the need to travel, and thereby reduce the attendant carbon emissions. We note that an allocation on our client’s land will encourage the principal of the ‘20-minute neighbourhood’ in which carbon emissions would be reduced and thus has a great benefit to climate change. We therefore support the proposal in the Issues and Options document that a comprehensive Green Belt assessment will be undertaken, and will be used to inform the Plan’s spatial strategy, and we look forward to reviewing this document as part of future consultations. Our client’s site currently comprises permanent pastureland located in the Green Belt. We understand that the Green Belt serves five purposes, however we demonstrate below that our client’s land’s contribution to the Green Belt’s functions are limited: • The site does not check the unrestricted of large built-up areas. • The site does not prevent two urban areas merging into one another. • The site is already located between developments and thus does not assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. It is therefore requested that the site is released from the Green Belt to provide an area for residential development.
Issue S2: Intensification Intensification provides several benefits such as tackling climate change, reducing travel and promoting active travel. The recent NPPF consultation also outlines a move towards greater intensification of brownfield land being sought at a national policy level. Developing an intensification policy would enable a higher number of dwellings on the Greenhill Street site, subject to appropriate heritage and townscape and residential amenity matters being addressed. This would result in greater numbers of affordable housing being delivered to the area, which is a top priority for the Council.
Q – S5.2 – NEW SETTLEMENTS in Weston-under-Wetherley – Hunningham The land that is being put forward for Development is part of Greenbelt land I have the following objections: - Quite a large portion of this land is often flooded when the River Leam is in FLOOD - There is no obvious entrance into this land from any existing country road – which means there could be considerable problems with access into this development - The possibility of such a large number of house within the two existing Villages, will considerably change to this part of Warwickshire. At present there are no amenities – i.e. Shops, regular bus services etc – which would cause lots of problems
Conclusion On behalf of Orbit, we thank you for the opportunity to input into the South Warwickshire Local Plan Issues and Options consultation. Orbit wish to commend the Council’s for the ambitious raft of climate change policies they are considering. Nevertheless, they request detailed consideration of the impact that these policies will have on the cost of submitting planning applications and the viability of sites going forward. The ambition of the Council in regard to the climate must also ensure that sufficient affordable homes are delivered within the area. The allocation of the Greenhill Street site for redevelopment to a mixed-use scheme is proposed by Orbit. As noted in the Call for Sites submission for the Site, further details will be provided in due course as the appropriate masterplanning and technical work progresses, and it is anticipated that the proposals will be shaped by extensive engagement with the Local Planning Authority and other key stakeholders. In the meantime, it is imperative that the emerging strategic policy context provides sufficient support and flexibility to enable the ambitious vision and potential for this site to be achieved.
We are firmly of the view that the Local Plan strategy should include provision for further extensions to the Long Marston New Settlement for both housing and employment uses and as is proposed in the five spatial options presented in the Issues and Options Consultation Document. Whilst priority should be given to previously developed land, the evidence presented within the Issues and Options document demonstrates that, as a matter of principle, greenfield sites must form part of the strategy in order to meet objectively assessed needs in the plan period. Consolidating and expanding the New Settlement, which currently has planning permission for 3,500 new homes, significant employment space, three schools, and a mixed-use village centre, will enhance the sustainability and resilience of this settlement and support the natural growth of this new community, complementing the Vision set out in the Adopted SPD of “a thriving new Garden Village that offers the best of town and country living”. The site itself is a natural extension to the Long Marston Garden Village adjacent to Pillbox Park and close to the Village Centre.
3. Meeting South Warwickshire’s Sustainable Development Needs : Question S 7.2 This section addresses Section 4 of the Consultation Document. We agree that the Local Plan’s primary role is to promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to meet the needs of South Warwickshire, align growth and infrastructure, improve the environment, mitigate climate change and adapt to its effects but equally there should be a clear commitment to provide sufficient land to meet both housing and economic needs within a spatial strategy, aimed at achieving the most sustainable pattern of development. In this context it is important to deliver a portfolio of sites and not rely on one option – referred to as a Hybrid Strategy in the consultation document. The consultation document refers to this approach as providing a balance of growth at existing main settlements, some growth at new settlement scale, and more modest growth in smaller settlements, which can contribute to enhancing the viability of village centres and provide affordable housing. The reference to “new settlements” should not only be confined to “new” new settlements which have significant lead in time for delivery and therefore cannot meet short and medium term needs but should also recognize the need to continue to grow and sustain existing new settlements such as Long Marston which are already delivering. This approach will support the viability and vitality of these new areas of growth and provide further investment for • Sustainable transport connectivity • Green infrastructure, • Renewable and low carbon energy generation to mitigate the effects of and adapt to climate change. • Services and facilities in the village centre • Community facilities and schools Further housing and economic growth in existing new settlements will also enhanc e opportunities for containment and reduce the need to travel. This approach will protect the West Midlands Green Belt in the north of the plan area and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in the south of the Plan area and avoid the negative effects of the dispersal strategy illustrated in the Sustainability Appraisal (Table 7.1) It is important to note at this stage that further growth at Long Marston appears in all of the options in Section 7 and this approach is supported. Green Belt We note that some of the assessment work has been undertaken with a “policy off” position applied to the Green Belt designation. However, Green Belt policy in the NPPF only permits the amendment of the Green Belt where exceptional circumstances exist (para 140). For exceptional circumstances to be justified, it is necessary to examine fully all other options for meeting the identified need for development. This requires an assessment of Green Belt and non-Green Belt locations. In this instance, other development options including further growth at Long Marston can be seen to perform better than Green Belt locations and, on this basis, the exceptional circumstances would not be met. In this context sites within the Green Belt would need to be materially better than non-Green Belt locations in order to be preferred as future locations for growth. That plainly is not the case and those non-Green Belt locations identified in the Strategic Options should be prioritized.
Issue S5 – The Potential for New Settlements Q-S5.2: Do you think new settlements should be part of the overall strategy? New settlements should form part of the overall strategy for development. They provide an opportunity to plan holistically for sustainable residential development alongside employment land, supported by appropriate low emission transport infrastructure, community facilities, green and blue infrastructure, and to provide land for biodiversity net gain. The location for a new settlement can be carefully chosen to minimise impacts on heritage assets, flood risk and biodiversity. It is recognised that planning for the infrastructure for a new settlement can take many years, and therefore the Plan should allocate land on a variety of sizes of site, to ensure a deliverable housing supply. New settlements in railway corridors should form an important part of the overall strategy as they will deliver housing and jobs over a long period of time, contributing not just to this Plan’s strategy but that of future Plans too, and would deliver highly sustainable new development where residents can either work close to their home, or travel by sustainable transport to work. Figure 12 of the draft Plan identifies the locations of potential new settlements, in railway corridors. Our client’s land lies within railway corridor area F, and forms part of the area identified as Location F3 (Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath). The Councils’ identification of these settlements in railway corridors should translate into a commitment to deliver a new railway station south of Southam, which would enable a new settlement to be properly planned around a sustainable transport hub. Together with the adjacent site submissions, our clients’ site could deliver a new settlement which lies only 1.4 miles from both the Kineton to Fenny Compton railway line, and from the Leamington to Banbury line, providing the opportunity to link the site to sustainable modes of transport. Together with the adjacent sites which have been promoted to the Council, the land promoted for development covers an area of approximately 368 hectares, and could deliver at least 75 ha employment land, thousands of new homes and community facilities in a landscaped setting. My client’s site is an unconstrained site, with no heritage assets within or adjacent to the site, and no environmental constraints or planning designations. We note that Table 4 of the draft Plan sets out a high level Sustainability Appraisal of the proposed new settlement locations, and that area F3 (Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath) has similar assessment scores to the other areas proposed, but scores better then others in terms of impact on cultural heritage and landscape. Q-S5.3: In response to the climate change emergencies, we are looking at rail corridors as a preferred approach to identifying potential locations. Do you agree? The rail corridor approach is supported in principle. To maximise the benefit of this approach, it should be underpinned by a commitment by the Local Planning Authority and Network Rail to deliver new stations, rather than relying on existing stations. This would then provide considerably more flexibility to ensure that any new settlement is properly planned for to connect to a sustainable transport hub, with plans for a new settlement including a rapid transit bus system which serves the new settlement and links it to the railway station, as well as a high density of cycle and walking routes.
I OBJECT to the proposals/exploration to build on the greenbelt between Leamington and Kenilworth in the South Warwickshire Local Plan. The majority of those calling for greenbelt encroachment have a vested interest in the greenbelt being built on. The greenbelt prevents North Leamington and Kenilworth becoming one urban sprawl. The greenbelt protects the individual identity and character of Leamington and Kenilworth. Greenbelt development will lead to the loss of good quality agricultural land which should be preserved. The footpaths in the greenbelt offer recreational, physical and mental health benefits for residents. Because of the above l OBJECT to the greenbelt between Leamington and Kenilworth being developed and built on.
4.2 Development distribution strategy for South Warwickshire Issue S1: Green & Blue Corridors: Natural England supports the direction of travel taken by the Plan to create a Local Nature Recovery Strategy for the area as per national guidance that is still being readied for dissemination by Government. The options provided each have merits to be further explored within each of them. Issue S6: A review of Green Belt boundaries: Greenbelts often are degraded landscapes capable of delivering more ecosystem services (especially landscape services and access to nature). The plan should include policies or proposals to positively enhance land within the Green Belt for biodiversity and climate resilience while enabling deeper nature experiences that improves the wellbeing of people. If the plan proposes to remove land from the Green Belt, that may affect local protected sites, then it should set out compensatory improvements to the environmental quality (including air, water and recreation impacts) and accessibility of remaining Green Belt land while also seeking NE advice on later stages of the plan making process. In relation to the aspects of the Green Belt which are within Natural England’s remit, we support the recognition of opportunities to enhance the beneficial use of the green belt. The green belt has the potential to deliver more positive benefits for the natural environment and people’s enjoyment of it and to play a role in climate change adaptation. Opportunities should be taken to link into green infrastructure (guided by NE new GI Standards and Principles) and ecological networks, both within the urban areas and with the open countryside.
Q-S3.2: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire: 2A: Prioritise brownfield development only when it corresponds with the identified growth strategy, or if it can be provide that the development is in a sustainable location or would increase the sustainability of the area. 2B: Prioritise development on brownfield land, incorporating existing buildings into development proposals wherever possible, irrespective of its location. 2C: None of these. It is acknowledged that national policy encourages the reuse and redevelopment of brownfield land. However, as identified by Option 2A, it is important that brownfield development should reflect the identified growth strategy in order to ensure that sustainable development is achieved. It should be noted that the Urban Capacity Study (October 2022) established that it is unlikely to be possible to meet current development needs without significant greenfield development. Whilst the reuse of suitable brownfield land, in line with the growth strategy and/or in sustainable locations should be encouraged by planning policy, it will not avoid the need for greenfield development as part of the South Warwickshire Local Plan. QS5.2 – Do you think new settlements should be part of the overall strategy? The Joint Local Plan could consider potential new settlement locations as part of a broad strategy of growth across the Plan area. A new settlement can deliver significant infrastructure in support of its development, to the benefit of future occupiers and can deliver a significant amount of growth to meet identified need. Option E1 provides for a new settlement in an area broadly to the north of the existing Long Marston Airfield and Meon Vale developments, which have come online through previous and the currently adopted Development Plan strategy, as referred to above. L&Q Estates land interests could be an extension to these developments, as highlighted, which would in effect create a new settlement at approximately the scale the Council are considering. Development on the land could deliver additional development in this area that would assist in the delivery of such key infrastructure on land that sits between the two developments, and which could provide comprehensive development to link the two areas, which could all be defined by a new settlement boundary. Development of the land would therefore fit within this category when considered as described, or be a further extension to the settlements already created. Moreover, this area needs to be considered within the SA where it currently does not fall within any of the reasonable alternatives identified and this must be rectified as the Plan progresses. For the purposes of these representations an assessment of the Site against the SA objectives is set out below: SA Objective 1 Climate Change: The site would deliver 1,000-1,500 dwellings in a sustainable location, close to existing development, services and facilities, and public transport links. The Site would support the delivery of 20-minute neighbourhoods to reduce travel to meet everyday needs with regard to the development surrounding. SA Objective 2 Flood Risk: The site comprises areas of Flood Zone 1, 2 and 3 but development will be placed outside of the current Zone 2 and 3 flood extents. There are limited opportunities to utilise soakaways based on technical work undertaken to support the delivery of the site and the surface water drainage strategy will utilise swales, filter drains, porous surfaces and detention basis as well as the principle of Building with Nature to maximise the opportunities for improvements to Zone 2 and 3 areas to maximise flood risk prevention. SA Objective 3 Biodiversity, Flora, Fauna and Geodiversity: An Ecological Site appraisal has recorded key habitat types and considered the ecological sensitivities of the Site. The site is not within 10km or 2mm of internationally or national designated sites (respectively) and whilst it is in the Impact Risk Zone of the Welford Field Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and also Racecourse Meadow SSSI the distance between the site and each SSSI means development of the site would not be anticipated to these. A landscape and green infrastructure strategy could provide an increase in the biodiversity values of the Site, in line with the mandate of the Environment Bill and the Masterplan has embodied such principles. SA Objective 4 Landscape: The site is not subject to any national or local landscape designation, it is not within the Green Belt or a Special Landscape Area and there are no TPOs on site. Whilst there is some intervisibility with Meon Hill within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) the Masterplan has been devised to mitigate potential impacts and would be seen in the context of the surrounding Meon Vale and LMAGV developments. SA Objective 5 Cultural Heritage: The site is not in a conservation area nor does it contain listed buildings. There are listed buildings to the west in Long Marston Village and to the South East, but these would not prejudice the overall deliverability of the Site for development. SA Objective 6 Pollution: It should be noted that mitigation is achievable for air quality impacts, including for example additional tree planting, installation of electric vehicle charging points and increased use of public transport through sustainably located development, such as at this Site. Objective 7 Natural Resources: The site is shown on Natural England mapping as Grade 4 agricultural land which is identified as poor quality. Objective 8 Waste: A development of 1,000-1,500 houses would generate a level of household waste however this can be managed with provision of suitable recycling facilities for all households. Objective 9 Housing Provision: The Site would deliver housing in a sustainable location. This would include affordable housing. Objective 10 Health: The site is accessible by modes of transport other than the private car which provide sustainable access to health services and facilities. There would be open space on site in the form of a country park and links to public footpaths and cycleways as set out above. Objective 11 Accessibility and 12 Education: The site is accessible by all forms of transport and development of the site would support and enhance bus services. There are also various local services and facilities in the immediate surrounds as referred to above and a primary school and local centre would be provided on the site. Objective 13 Economy: The site is well located to benefit from existing economic and employment opportunities associated with Meon Vale to the south and LMAGV to the north. Q-S9: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire Option S9a: Save all existing settlement boundaries where these are already defined within the Core Strategy, Local Plan, emerging SAP or an NDP. Option S9b: Within this Part 1 Plan, review which settlements have boundaries defined and which do not, as well as the extent of any such boundaries. It is considered that a combination of both options may be appropriate for the Joint Local Plan. Where the Plan seeks to allocate land for development for strategic sites as set out at paragraph 1.4 of the Issues and Options document, then reviewing settlement boundaries should be undertaken as part of the proposed site allocation. Beyond this, to be found sound, the Plan must be prepared: Positively, in a way that is aspirational, but deliverable, and it should set out a framework for addressing housing needs and other economic, social and environmental priorities (NPPF paragraphs 15 and 16). To shape the spatial strategy for the Plan and ensure all reasonable alternatives are considered, a review of existing settlement boundaries will be required to identify sufficient land, in sustainable location to meet the development needs of the Plan. For example, land at Station Road Long Marston plus the existing development to the north and south could be defined by a settlement boundary which relates to their strategic function in delivering growth and development as an overall entity.
Settlements falling outside the chosen growth strategy: I do not feel a threshold approach to small scale development is appropriate in greenbelt areas. We do not feel the plan should allow for more small scale growth developments to come forward in greenbelt areas.
We are making this submission in order that an error concerning the designation of our land and the drawing of the Leek Wootton Parish boundary made in the Local Plan made in 2017 can be rectified. In making this submission we have the full support of the Leek Wootton Parish Council and especially that of the Chair [named] who has previously made some representations to WDC Planning department on our behalf. We purchased the land in question in 1984 when the houses in The Elms were built. Six house owners were each sold about an acre of land behind the houses as paddocks. We own one of these pieces of land. The land in question was one area previously owned by [name], and was all designated in the same way and sold to be used in the same way as paddocks adjoining the gardens of the six houses. We all use it for the purpose of an extension to the garden. We have worked tirelessly on our land since 1984, cutting the grass, weeding, setting flowers, trees and shrubs, and using it to walk in, sit in and as a play area for our children and now our resident grandchildren. On the current local plan (since 2017) our land is designated as green belt land but the land belonging to the other five houseowners is not. This results in the village boundary line being the boundary between our land and that of our Neighbour. Our land is therefore outside of the village boundary. The Parish Council together with ourselves consider this to be a mistake and an anomaly and that all of this area of land behind the houses should be designated in the same way. We all use it for the purpose of an extension to the garden. We have been trying since 2017 to have this anomaly rectified but have been consistently advised that we would have to wait until the Local Plan is revised again.We understand that this opportunity exists now and we are asking that in the New Plan our land be included in the Village boundary and be designated in the same way as our neighbors' land. We are attaching 2 Plans which identify the land in question and the existing Parish boundary. Also a photograph of the land with the fence in the background which currently defines the Parish boundary, We spoke at length with [named] Policy Planner at Stratford on Avon District Council who advised us that we could make this submission and our Representation by email as none of the online designated Forms were relevant to our purpose. In his email reply to [Councillor], he did state ``My assumption matches yours – I think this was most likely simply an anomaly when the boundaries were drawn.``
I am specifically opposed to development of land in the greenbelt areas around Hunningham and other similar small greenbelt villages due to the impact on the rural character of the area of the North Leamington Greenbelt. The Climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land. This is a weak and bizarre argument. There are other ways of mitigating against the climate emergency without developing on greenbelt land, which itself is truly harmful. There is no option to comment on issue S6 within the plan (A review of the greenbelt boundaries). I do not feel it is necessary or appropriate to redefine greenbelt boundaries. This issue should not have been included within the consultation without the option to comment. The number of respondents (561 responses) to the first consultation was exceptionally small indeed and can in no way be considered representative of the population area. It is possible given these very small numbers they were from developers or others who would directly benefit from such development (there were almost as many sites submitted as responses received!). This tiny number of respondents is so small it should not be used as a basis for decision making and should not be used to justify development or review of the greenbelt.
Q-S4.1: Do you think that growth of some of our existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy? Yes, the growth of some existing settlements (in particular those identified and assessed as part of the Settlement Design Analysis document) should be part of the overall strategy as it permits us to utilise and enhance existing facilities and infrastructure to create more sustainable places for people to live. Encouraging the well-placed growth of sustainable settlements, such as Radford Semele which already boasts a number of public facilities such as a Primary School and local businesses offering jobs, allows us to implement the idea of the 20-minute neighbourhood as any potential development offers additional facilities such as new health facilities and the provision of additional school places. This would also lead to a reduction in transport related Greenhouse Gas emissions as where development is located close to local services which meet local needs, the need to travel by private car is heavily reduced. As such an allocation on our client’s land would encourage both social and economic growth of the area together with its environmental benefits.
Issue S8 – Small scale development outside of the chosen growth option. Q-S8.1: For settlements falling outside the chosen growth strategy, do you think a threshold approach is appropriate, to allow more small-scale developments to come forward? A threshold approach could be appropriate, to allow more small-scale developments to come forward. We welcome the acknowledgement in the supporting text to Issue S8 of the importance of small scale development to preserve the vitality of smaller settlements. The Plan also notes that allocating very small sites in a larger number of small settlements may not be appropriate, because it is difficult to predict where and when these needs will arise. We fundamentally disagree with this approach. It should be well understood by the Local Planning Authority which villages have services which are in need of support. Further, Stratford Upon Avon District Council publishes Local Housing Needs (LHN) Assessments, which confirm the extent of that local need for each settlement. These documents provide a robust indication of the level of market and affordable housing needs in these settlements. Indeed, the LPA relies upon the LHN assessments in its adopted Policy CS15 as the basis on which new, small scale housing schemes can be acceptable in principle. We would therefore urge the Planning Authority to consider allocating small sites for development in villages, to support local shops, services and community facilities and maintain populations. We note that the village of Stockton had a population of 1,391 at the 2001 Census, which fell to 1,347 at the 2011 Census. Without providing new homes, young and growing families are unable to move into the smaller villages or are forced to move away, leading to a loss of vitality and falling populations. It is therefore important that this Plan allocates sites to these settlements through a dispersal strategy, or identifies a suitable, proportionate level of growth for these small villages, over and above a simple infill policy. Q-S8.2: For sites coming forward as part of this threshold approach, what do you think would be an appropriate size limit for individual sites? We recommend that the threshold be based on the size of the existing village. The precise percentage will need to be tested through Sustainability Appraisal but we consider that a limit of ten dwellings may be too low. Firstly, this will represent an extremely low percentage increase for many villages. Taking the example of Stockton, the village has approximately 600 households, so an increase of ten dwellings would equate to less than 2% growth which will do little to support local services and deliver local housing needs. An increase of 10%, however, would equate to 60 new households which would add to the vitality of the village and enable population growth, without overwhelming the existing settlement. Secondly, limiting sites to ten dwellings will not deliver affordable housing, since national policy only requires affordable housing for major residential developments.
Please note I have found it extremely difficult to submit my comments online as requested, this is why I am emailing instead. It is unacceptable to make this process so complicated thus preventing many people sharing their views. Please find my arguments below: 1. The Green Belt north of Leamington is important for many reasons: - It is high quality agricultural land which should be safeguarded for the sake of national food security. - Its footpaths offer recreational and health benefits for many people in the town of Leamington Spa who can access the area on foot. The number of people using the footpaths increased hugely during periods of lockdown and this has continued since. - It prevents a sprawling northwards of the town of Leamington Spa and forms a green ‘northern gateway’ to the town. This in turn helps Leamington to maintain its setting and special character. - It helps to maintain the distinct identities of the towns of Kenilworth and Leamington Spa and prevents them merging into one another. - It assists in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land, in line with the Government’s “Brownfield First” pledge. 2. It is not necessary or appropriate to develop the Green Belt north of Leamington because: - It is not in line with current Government policy. - The statistic used in the consultation in support of Green Belt development is misleading. This says that 54% of respondents support the exploration of Green Belt growth opportunities, without mentioning that 45% of respondents were developers, landowners and businesses. - The Green Belt north of Leamington fulfils all five of the stated purposes of the Green Belt. - The Green Belt north of Leamington is high quality agricultural land which should be safeguarded to promote food security. - The planning team explored options which placed development outside of the Green Belt yet it has presented none of these in the consultation document.
I am a very, very worried resident at 4 Risdale Close in Leamington Spa and I am writing to object to the South Warwickshire Local Plan. Please note I have found it extremely difficult to submit my comments online as requested, this is why I am emailing instead. It is unacceptable to make this process so complicated thus preventing many people sharing their views. It’s similar to the recent, almost hidden development of Newbold Comyn [ Redacted text], not in the interest of the residents who pay to live here. Please find my arguments below: The Green Belt north of Leamington is important for many reasons: - It is high quality agricultural land which should be safeguarded for the sake of national food security. - Its footpaths offer recreational and health benefits for many people in the town of Leamington Spa who can access the area on foot. The number of people using the footpaths increased hugely during periods of lockdown and this has continued since. - It prevents a sprawling northwards of the town of Leamington Spa and forms a green ‘northern gateway’ to the town. This in turn helps Leamington to maintain its setting and special character. - It helps to maintain the distinct identities of the towns of Kenilworth and Leamington Spa and prevents them merging into one another. - It assists in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land, in line with the Government’s “Brownfield First” pledge. 2. It is not necessary or appropriate to develop the Green Belt north of Leamington because: - It is not in line with current Government policy. - The statistic used in the consultation in support of Green Belt development is misleading. This says that 54% of respondents support the exploration of Green Belt growth opportunities, without mentioning that 45% of respondents were developers, landowners and businesses. - The Green Belt north of Leamington fulfils all five of the stated purposes of the Green Belt. - The Green Belt north of Leamington is high quality agricultural land which should be safeguarded to promote food security. - The planning team explored options which placed development outside of the Green Belt yet it has presented none of these in the consultation document.
I am specifically opposed to development of land in the greenbelt areas around Hunningham and other similar small greenbelt villages due to the impact on the rural character of the area of the North Leamington Greenbelt. The Climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land. This is a weak and bizarre argument. There are other ways of mitigating against the climate emergency without developing on greenbelt land, which itself is truly harmful. There is no option to comment on issue S6 within the plan (A review of the greenbelt boundaries). I do not feel it is necessary or appropriate to redefine greenbelt boundaries. This issue should not have been included within the consultation without the option to comment. The number of respondents (561 responses) to the first consultation was exceptionally small indeed and can in no way be considered representative of the population area. It is possible given these very small numbers they were from developers or others who would directly benefit from such development (there were almost as many sites submitted as responses received!). This tiny number of respondents is so small it should not be used as a basis for decision making and should not be used to justify development or review of the greenbelt
I object strongly to the change in use of green belt land around North Leamington This land is high quality agricultural land. At a time when there are empty shelves in supermarkets and the president of the National Farmers' union is calling for more uk food sourcing it is vital to safeguard such areas for the sake of national food security The number of people using the footpaths over this land increased hugely during the Covid lock down periods. Having found the recreational and health benefits of an area that can be easily accessed on foot, many have continued to use this space and on a website used to express their thanks to the farmer mentioned its vital role. At a time when the lack of mental and physical is putting great strains on resources. it is paramount that access to such free beneficial facilities is maintained This space helps to maintain the distinct identities of the towns of Leamington Spa and Kenilworth and prevents them merging as in so many other areas. There are derelict areas of land in the area which are yet to be explored inline with the government's "Brownfield First " pledge Thus the plan is not inline with current government policy The statistics used in the consultation in support of Green Belt development are misleading. 45% of the 54% of respondents reported to be in support of the growth opportunities were developers, landowners and businesses, a distinction not made. The Green Belt north of Leamington fulfils all five of the stated purposes of the Green Belt. The consultation document does not contain any options for development outside of the agreed Belt, though they are reported to have explored these options We are the custodians of this land for future generations. If this land is developed it can never be returned to its high quality agricultural status. Please consider the alternatives carefully and responsibly before such destruction
Settlements falling outside the chosen growth strategy: I do not feel a threshold approach to small scale development is appropriate in greenbelt areas. We do not feel the plan should allow for more small scale growth developments to come forward in greenbelt areas I am specifically opposed to development of land in the greenbelt areas around Hunningham and other similar small greenbelt villages due to the impact on the rural character of the area of the North Leamington Greenbelt. The Climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land. This is a weak and bizarre argument. There are other ways of mitigating against the climate emergency without developing on greenbelt land, which itself is truly harmful. There is no option to comment on issue S6 within the plan (A review of the greenbelt boundaries). I do not feel it is necessary or appropriate to redefine greenbelt boundaries. This issue should not have been included within the consultation without the option to comment. The number of respondents (561 responses) to the first consultation was exceptionally small indeed and can in no way be considered representative of the population area. It is possible given these very small numbers they were from developers or others who would directly benefit from such development (there were almost as many sites submitted as responses re ceived!). This tiny number of respondents is so small it should not be used as a basis for decision making and should not be used to justify development or review of the greenbelt.
Paragraph 140 of the national planning framework, which the council purports to apply to the plan states “Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified” Additionally Leamington, Warwick and Kenilworth are historical towns where the requirement to protect the green spaces surrounding them is identified i. The National Planning Framework as even greater importance. Also even if exceptional circumstance have been identified, there is an onus on the council to explore all other alternatives first. Can I suggest that the authors of the SWLP do properly familiarise themselves with the entirety of section 13 of the National Planning Framework, it is not simply a case of whether more citizens don’t mind it’s development than oppose it. The protections for the green belt have been put there for good reason and it should be absolutely off the table for planning purposes, other than perhaps providing better access for people to enjoy it. In summary as we had on the previous local plan, there are no new exceptional circumstance that require any new development, sustainable or not to the green belt north of Leamington.
In consideration regarding the proposals to utilise Green Belt land for future development and in particular that which covers North Leamington, my response is as follows. The dedication of enrolling sections of fertile farmland into a Green Belt corridor has many important issues. Firstly it fosters the aspect of providing a ‘green lung’ between densely populated urban areas, thus maintaining the divisions necessary to avoid huge conurbations. It also provides an area for people to walk, run & train together with a facility to exercise pets, for the better well-being of mankind and their animals. Undeveloped land corridors give wild birds and animals the freedoms to maintain their populations, together with essential food and protection from harm. As a country, we are in danger of moving towards the period prior to the second world war where our food relied heavily on imports – some 85%. The establishment of green belts and farm subsidies reversed this trend in peacetime. However, we now live in geopolitical turbulence where both food and energy security are highly at risk, to mitigate this we must learn the lessons of the past and maintain a prosperous, secure and productive farming food supply. We will greatly alienate the next generation if we fail to address this critical issue by building on land that is within the green belt family and continue to divide farms, such that they become unproductive and destabilised. Hedgerow field divisions have a natural protective role in providing safe areas for small birds to avoid raptors, they also encourage many other species to prosper. The action of biennial hedge cutting by farmers maintains this ‘tight’ structure of hedges for this very purpose, but also forms the field boundary for the containment of livestock. The maintenance of open farmland provides a vital source of water due to the drainage of rainwater through the soil to the lower aquifers, these in turn, when accessed, provide vital drinking water for a growing population. We are water deficient in the UK, building houses on concrete rafts with hard roads, driveways and minimal garden space is at odds with any method of water capture, particularly on green belt areas. Growing crops have a hugely important roll in providing areas for our bees to operate naturally, these we know are a vital source of pollination of plants that keep the world from a disaster in food poverty. Bees and other winged pollinators require green crop corridors to efficiently perform this key task, we remove them at our peril. Mature trees and hedgerows also contribute in a large way to carbon capture, decimate their population and the consequences are enormous. Turning to the specific area of North Leamington, I have lived overlooking this green belt farm land for thirty seven years, observing first hand the large number of people using the local footpaths on a daily basis – a key contributor to both their health & mental goals. I can recall most of the annual food crops grown on the land planted and harvested each season, together with the wildlife it supports – from having a lifetime career in agriculture. My attendance at the Town Hall meeting in 2017 regarding the proposal to build on this green belt area, [Redacted text]. Surely, [Further Redacted text]. Housing development as proposed, would add a huge amount of extra traffic to a local road network at best near maximum capacity. Allowing additional traffic to use Guys Cliffe Avenue passing two large schools, would exacerbate the already busy junctions on to Rugby Road and beyond. The use of Sandy Lane from Old Milverton village to the A425 Kenilworth road, already having a poor accident record, would cause huge queues at the Thickthorn A46 traffic island; not withstanding the consideration of the ongoing large housing development in that area of Kenilworth. It is already dangerous to queue on the slip roads from the A46 at busy times with tailbacks on to the dual carriageway. Both Leamington Spa & Warwick have a proliferation of river, canal and railway infrastructures on the majority arterial roads, all of which have to be crossed at some time, a key pinch point. These are at saturation already, as seen by the standing traffic every day on the Europa Way, Heathcote area. Simply adding more housing to use these routes would further the decimation of bus timetables, destabilise school and work related journeys and put a huge strain on emergency vehicles reaching their critical destinations on life saving missions. An electric vehicle revolution is not the answer, as it does not reduce traffic volumes. [Further Redacted text]. The destruction of such valuable green belt areas will only fulfil a short term housing & financial gain, but will have a totally everlasting impact on the livelihood of humans, wildlife and treasured open countryside, to which there is no price worth paying.
I would like to register my horror at this preposed development between Weston and Hunningham. It was bad enough when the old hospital site was developed in Weston some years ago. We don’t need more houses, we are a rural village without a huge infrastructure. We olive with the hideous disruption caused by HS2 . We don’t need any more houses , especially in a green belt and flood plan.
I am strongly opposed to local plan proposals effecting N Leamington. They assume development of green belt as no alternatives are tabelled. I fully endorse the arguments against green belt development given in LP ch4 S6. , and on the Old Milverton Parish website. I have been an Old Milverton Allotments holder and local resident for nearly 30 years. Our allotment is a highly valued green community space providing: - self sufficiency in a time of veg shortages and a cost of living crisis - community cohesion across ages,ethnicities etc. - mental wellbeing and exercise benefits, esp during Covid. - supports the governments green and climate change agendas - a source of biodiversity, fox, muntjac, green woodpeckers, the list is extensive It is a haven of peace, quiet, sharing and mutual support. [Redacted text].
Settlements falling outside the chosen growth strategy: I do not feel a threshold approach to small scale development is appropriate in greenbelt areas. We do not feel the plan should allow for more small scale growth developments to come forward in greenbelt areas. I am specifically opposed to development of land in the greenbelt areas around Hunningham and other similar small greenbelt villages due to the impact on the rural character of the area of the North Leamington Greenbelt. The Climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land. This is a weak and bizarre argument. There are other ways of mitigating against the climate emergency without developing on greenbelt land, which itself is truly harmful. There is no option to comment on issue S6 within the plan (A review of the greenbelt boundaries). I do not feel it is necessary or appropriate to redefine greenbelt boundaries. This issue should not have been included within the consultation without the option to comment. The number of respondents (561 responses) to the first consultation was exceptionally small indeed and can in no way be considered representative of the population area. It is possible given these very small numbers they were from developers or others who would directly benefit from such development (there were almost as many sites submitted as responses received!). This tiny number of respondents is so small it should not be used as a basis for decision making and should not be used to justify development or review of the greenbelt.
Objection to: Building on green belt fields in North Leamington (Milverton and Blackdown). Ruination of the habitat and trees outcry once trees have been cut down so don’t cut them down in the first place! More congestion on the roads and fumes we will become a concrete jungle no green land left to enjoy. Leave our green lands alone, they are very precious.
Settlements falling outside the chosen growth strategy: I do not feel a threshold approach to small scale development is appropriate in greenbelt areas. We do not feel the plan should allow for more small scale growth developments to come forward in greenbelt areas. I am specifically opposed to development of land in the greenbelt areas around Hunningham and other similar small greenbelt villages due to the impact on the rural character of the area of the North Leamington Greenbelt. The Climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land. This is a weak and bizarre argument. There are other ways of mitigating against the climate emergency without developing on greenbelt land, which itself is truly harmful. There is no option to comment on issue S6 within the plan (A review of the greenbelt boundaries). I do not feel it is necessary or appropriate to redefine greenbelt boundaries. This issue should not have been included within the consultation without the option to comment. The number of respondents (561 responses) to the first consultation was exceptionally small indeed and can in no way be considered representative of the population area. It is possible given these very small numbers they were from developers or others who would directly benefit from such development (there were almost as many sites submitted as responses received!). This tiny number of respondents is so small it should not be used as a basis for decision making and should not be used to justify development or review of the greenbelt.
The overall aims sound sensible and I have no problem with them on paper. However, I can't see how the plan to build on green belt land in any way meets these. I urge the councils to consider options that do not include building on green belt land. Please take my comments forward to the relevant sections: • Open spaces on green belt land protect biodiversity and protect the effects of climate change. Decimating this green belt land does the exact opposite and endangers the local environment (and indeed contributes to endangering the entire planet) for our future generations. [Redacted text]. • Building on green belt land does the opposite of promoting a healthy, safe and inclusive South Warwickshire. Walking across public rights of way in these areas is an accessible and affordable way of maintaining physical and mental health. You don't have to pay for gym membership or expensive equipment – just put your shoes on and go. Walking in open spaces like this is fundamentally different from walking through a housing estate, particularly for mental wellbeing. People are struggling – please don't take this option away from them. • Building on the green belt land in the ways proposed will begin the merging of Kenilworth and Leamington, which is precisely what green belt land is meant to stop. The plan states that it wants to support distinct town centres, and creating more urban sprawl is again doing the exact opposite. • Building on green belt land in no way protects the beauty of South Warwickshire. I can't see how anyone could argue otherwise. • Does building on green belt land really support the actual housing needs in the area? Family houses in North Leamington are expensive and desirable – building more of these will not solve the need for affordable housing in urban areas near where people actually work. They will attract affluent families who are commuting (often by car, adding to emissions) to other areas for work.
Green site development: National policy states that this can only be done where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified. The emphasis should be to use brown field sites for new houses and to preserve Green Belt as currently defined!