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

NEW HOUSES WHERE EXISTING RAIL, ROAD AND INFRASTRUCTURE(EG SHOPS, SCHOOLS) EXIST TO LIMIT TRAVEL

I'm confused about why there is no consultation question about the greenbelt development. Key elements of the initial establishment of greenbelt policy are undermined by these proposals - in particular: To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns To assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other land Leamington is one of the few towns were it is possible to access the countryside within a short walk from the town, these developments would change the character of the town, destroy countryside which is crucial to population health and wellbeing and destroy valuable habitats. As a district we increasingly investing in health and wellbeing and recognising the importance of green space as part of that. The greenbelt land is home to allotments, to well used walking areas and to areas of natural beauty and historical importance (Old Milverton). Over the last 6 months I have seen muntjac deer, sky larks, herons and bats in this area at a time when their valuable habitat is being reduced due to other building and HS2 developments. The wider impact of development of this area should be considered as part of the plan.

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.

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. The green belt fields in North Leamington (Milverton and Blackdown) meet at least 4 of the purposes of Green Belt, as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework: (a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; (b) to prevent neighbouring towns of Leamington and Kenilworth merging into one another; (c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; (d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.

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. 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, not considering areas that no longer meet all five of the Green Belt purposes. I am concerned for the impact on biodiversity, air quality, and recreation opportunities in natural environments.

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

1. The proposal would result in an unplanned new town with up to 10,000 homes with 3500 already approved at Long Marston Airfield and 1500 at Meon Vale 2. The development would be poorly located in terms of road and rail - the road network around the development already suffers from congestion, poor quality roads and high number of road traffic accidents. 3. The recent feasibility study has demonstrated that the reopening of the rail line from Stratford to Meon Vale would not be viable. 4. The proposals would result in a significant increase in cars and heavy lorries using the B4632 and the roads in and around Stratford on Avon to access the A46 and the Motorways. 5. There would also be an increase in the traffic using the minor roads towards Evesham to access the towns and motorway network to the south. 6. The road network to and around Stratford in Avon is inadequate and unable to accommodate the growth at LMA that has already been granted planning permission. 7. The development would impact on the environment and landscape of the area resulting in the loss of agricultural land between Meon Vale and Long Marston Airfield and the potential to enhance the wildlife potential of the former rail corridor.

Why is there no consultation option for Issue S6?

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. The Green belt is enjoyed by a large number of people daily for walks, runs, and walking dogs. In North Leamington it is the only place one can leave the city and enjoy nature, peace and quiet, essential for good mental health. It also allows people to exercise and stay fit. Changing the Green belt boundaries would have a huge effect on people living near the Green belt.

The land proposed for potential development in north Leamington is totally inappropriate. Such a development would result in urban sprawl and the possibility of eventual urban coalesce. It will alter forever the character and ambience of the area. The land proposed is an important local amenity. There is very little publicly accessible open space in this area which is used more and more for exercise and recreation. The NPPF clearly states that one purpose of Green Belt protection is the prevention of urban sprawl. The land proposed for development in north Leamington is high quality agricultural land. The country must not be reliant on imports of foodstuffs with farmers already being urged to produce more food to meet ever rising demand. The loss of good agricultural land is to be deplored. The national guidelines state that to permit development in the Green Belt the Council need to demonstrate "exceptional circumstances". I think it would be very difficult to demonstrate such circumstances. The Council must demonstrate that there is insufficient suitable and available sites outside the Green Belt. The Council's over-riding concern should be for local residents and to protect the ever diminishing countryside not only for the present but for future generations.

It is not clear how in the Spatial Growth Options the Existing Major Investment Sites are to be treated, how they have been considered in the formulation of the Growth Options, or what the implications will be of the continued advancement of those Sites for the Growth Options. As the preparation of the Plan progresses it will be essential to ensure that the selected Growth Option integrates properly with the significant role the Existing Major Investment Sites should be expected to play and to ensure there is consistency, including with other initiatives such as the Core Opportunity Area. Some disconnect in this regard is suggested later in the Issues and Options (page 89) in the discussion of the Major Investment Site South of Coventry. It is suggested that much of the land here without planning permission is in the Green Belt, and that growth in this area would need to understand this and the preferred option for growth. This appears to imply an existing and successful Major Investment Site being responsive to a yet to be decided growth strategy. It should instead be the case that the growth strategy reflects the potential and encourages the growth of this Major Investment Site, and the others. It might also be noted in this regard that a large part of the land in the South of Coventry Area with planning permission, at the Airport, is also within the Green Belt. As discussed elsewhere in these representations this is an anomaly. The Airport should be taken out of the Green Belt so that its full sustainable development potential can be realised.

No building on Green Belt land should be permitted. No building near sites of historical interest should be allowed. This should include any single routes into small villages containing a site of historical interest because that would damage the landscape and decrease tourism into those areas.

An earlier question was about a limit on size of site and I indicated a maximum of ten was appropriate, this would not prevent smaller sites coming forward but would possibly prevent too many dwellings however that only applies if the total number of new dwellings per village/hamlet was limited otherwise it might be possible to have ten in phase one with developer A another ten in phase two with developer B and so on. such must be avoided. As should the extent to which some LSV's should expand. The current plan provides only an 'indication' of numbers towards a grand total within the plan period, each LSV should in the new plan have a maximum number of new dwellings within the plan period, perhaps with the sole exception of local community led schemes. If the green belt is reviewed and land removed those settlements still within the green belt should benefit from greater protection and less 'infill' Give up some green belt to protect the remainder, stop demolishing perfectly good dwellings just to create 'infill' plots for greater densities, maintain existing character landscapes.

Issue S6: A review of Green Belt boundaries: I find it slightly Orwellian that it is not possible to comment or answer questions on this section directly. The supposition upon which the alleged requirement for this re-visitation of boundaries contrary to emerging national policy is based, is childishly flawed. The outcome of workshop research in 2022, presumably carried out with carefully chosen focus-groups found that "All groups revised their strategy when placements were permitted in Green Belt locations. This is a clear indication that placing all the growth outside of the Green Belt was not felt to be the most suitable growth strategy". The way that this question is posed without context is deeply leading and promotes framing bias in the response which has clearly carried through into the interpretation. It would be comparable to asking drivers if they could cut their journey time from Birmingham to London if the motorway speed-limits were not a factor; without asking if the drivers agreed that speed limits serve a valid function; then summarily doing away with speed-limits. The evolving spatial growth document also notes "Green belt is however a strong national policy designation, and any incursion would require thorough examination and robust justification. It remains to be determined whether the SWLP might seek some green belt revisions, and this matter will be explored further through the ‘Issues and Options consultation" The lack of questions or invitation to respond on this topic implies heavily that the decision has been made, rather than the issue is being explored through the issues and options consultation as was apparently intended during the consultation workshops. The list of organisations from which attendees were drawn is not easily accessible; a lack of transparency which again leaves the process open to allegations of selection bias. The "majority support for undertaking a review of Green Belt boundaries" cited from the call for sites consultation in 2021 is also open to the same accusations of bias given the financial interests that those offering sites in the greenbelt, currently restricted from much development, would undoubtedly benefit should their land fall out-with such restrictions following a review. Revising green belt boundaries is contrary to current governmental thinking outlined in the NPPF and it is extremely unlikely that the required very special circumstances would be met. I would urge you to pursue a plan which maximises options for improved development rather than taking the easier option of tacking developments onto already straining infrastructure (Water, Sewage, transport) and to cease peddling the view that centralising growth in perpetuity is somehow sustainable and that 'easy' or lower cost/higher profit development in greenbelt is the right answer. Warwick and Leamington are already indistinguishable in places and a greenbelt review could see this become true of neighbouring population centres such as Kenilworth, Coventry and Rugby.

Why is there no commment and consultation in on S6 as it is a critical issue? Also this form is so prohibitive and difficult to use especially for those not tech savvy, and to feels like it is designed to prevent people actually commenting and being consulted. It is a real issue in and of itself as I think it’s a barrier to genuine consultation.

There needs to be a linked-up policy combining education, retail, employment, transport, manufacturing, health and social care with the quantity and quality of new development.

On behalf of Cubbington Parish Council The Cubbington Neighbourhood Development Plan CNDP survey strongly highlights that the majority of those who responded 99% want existing open spaces and green belt preserved, protect existing nature, environment and open land and landscape views. 84% wanted no new housing but if there were to be any then the development should be assessed on its impact on the whole village, not in isolation and accompanied with the necessary infrastructure and services improvements. New housing, should this be limited in number to protect the separate identity of Cubbington. The construction of HS2 within and adjacent to the parish has the potential to impact on the local environment and pressure for changes to the Green Belt boundary and this must be resisted. Any significant development North Leamington, Blackdown, Leicester Lane will materially affect the residents of Cubbington and its sustainability and impact on existing schools, local amenities, roads and infrastructure. Windmill Hill junction and key roads, Kenilworth Road, Rugby Road are now subject to increased volumes of cars and heavy goods vehicles as more traffic from Southam and surrounding villages access the A46 at peak times. Many of these roads and junctions were never designed for this situation with risks to local residents increasing in terms of road safety, pedestrians and noise and air pollution increasing. Supporting the above statement the current objectives of the draft CNDP are :- OBJECTIVE 1 – To protect and enhance green spaces. OBJECTIVE 2 – To ensure any new development creates high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places that reinforce the identity of Cubbington and the surrounding countryside. OBJECTIVE 3 – To conserve and enhance the natural environment and built heritage assets of the area. OBJECTIVE 4 – To protect and enhance local community facility provision. OBJECTIVE 5 – To ensure any new development is of a proportionate scale and supported by sufficient infrastructure so that it minimises impact on Cubbington’s existing communities.

There is no consultation question for either issue S6 or S10. The local plan process is flawed because spatial growth options presuppose that it is acceptable to develop Green Belt land. The first 3 options put a majority of the development on the Green Belt and all five options put North Leamington Green Belt appropriate site for development. This is not in line with Government policy which states that Green Belt should be protected and does not have to be released to meet housing need. I object to the fact that there is no consultation question for Issue S6 - a review of Green Belt boundaries.

Greenbelt. The Greenbelt, which Henley sits in, should continue to be respected and valued. One of its key features is to ensure land is kept permanently open. This still serves an important purpose and should be protected for present and future generations. This includes playing an important role in preventing urban sprawl, encouraging wellbeing, exercise and healthy lifestyles and also supporting our response to the climate emergency. As highlighted by a House of Commons briefing (Feb 2023), the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) outlines the fundamental importance of maintaining the Greenbelt and that only in 'exceptional circumstances' should it be developed or altered. The current Government is also intending on amending the NPPF to further protect the Greenbelt. It states 'we propose to make clear that local planning authorities are not required to review and alter Green Belt boundaries if this would be the only way of meeting need in full (although authorities would still have the ability to review and alter Green Belt boundaries if they wish, if they can demonstrate that exceptional circumstances exist).' (Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill: Reforms to National Planning Policy, Ch4, Dec 2022). I don't think these 'exceptional' circumstances are met considering the disregard of potential development outside of the Greenbelt in the south of South Warwickshire. Futhermore, the Spatial Growth Strategy Workshops game-planned scenarios with Greenbelt on and Greenbelt off options. The future housing needs seem to have been met in the Greenbelt on scenario, so there is no need to develop in the Greenbelt. It exists to stop these very development plans. Furthermore, the Plan seems to focus a lot of development in the north of South Warwickshire, which ignores the two thirds of land not classified as Greenbelt that could be developed in the south of South Warwickshire. The Cotswolds AONB is rightly prioritised in the Plan - there is even a question about including a new buffer zone to the AONB. However the Greenbelt is not similarly prioritised. There should be a prioritisation of development and intensification of development on existing brownfield sites rather than in the Greenbelt. Also, why will the next stage put forward only one preferred option out of the five Spatial Growth Options? A combination of existing approaches may also be preferable.

The Local Plan should fully examine all other 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 ANT ONE of the five purposes as defined in NPPF.

There is such a lot to say about why Green Belt land should be protected and especially why the North Leamington Green Belt should be maintained. Why is this Section of the document presented as a closed case?

I specifically wish to opppose the development of the large area of land identified between Weston-under-Wetherley and Hunningham. This is largely greenbelt land which should be protected, and other (brownfield) sites being prioritised ahead of it. Such development would irreversibly alter the character of both villages, leading to inappropriate urbanisation of an existing rural area. Much of the land is subject to Level 2 Flood risk assessment and the level of groundwater around Weston-under-Wetherley is high, meaning flood risks to new and existing properties locally are likely to rise significantly from their current status, were this currently mainly farmland to be lost. There is no sustainable travel option currently existing in the area, upon which to build, with no railway or local station. Development would be directly against the 20minute neighbourhood concept, given the lack of current amenities. The Hunningham bridge would not cope with an increase in traffic, esp heavy load vehicles. This is Grade II Listed. Simply redefining greenbelt land because it's an easy way to meet growth needs in an area, is inappropriate as a long-term and sustainable development strategy for housing.

There's no mention of burial ground provision. New development needs to consider health and education to meet the well connected objective but further growth in Alcester would be outside the 10 minute neighbourhood in relation to walking to GPs and schools

We were alarmed to see that there are proposals to alter the green belt boundaries between North Leamington and Kenilworth, particularly the area of Old Milverton and Blackdown. This area is prime agricultural land, especially important when sustainability of home grown food supplies is becoming more and more critical. In addition, this area has provided essential health and wellbeing outlets, it is the 'lungs' of North Leamington, used extensively by walkers for leisure and exercise. This was especially evident during the lockdown periods. To build on this land is to deny the positive benefits of open countryside, which has proved such a necessity for people's mental health. Once it is developed, it is lost forever.

Comments on the Green Belt: I think that existing Green Belt boundaries should be upheld. Warwickshire is an intensively farmed and increasingly built environment and Green Belt provides some protection for biodiversity and wildlife habitat preservation or regeneration. I am not opposed to smaller scale, low density, development where these developments also improve the Green Belt in terms of its biodiversity, wildlife habitat, and leisure benefits to adjacent communities. But I am opposed to the 'concreting-over' of Green Belt land.

I would like to know why there is no consultation question for Issue S6 - a review of Green Belt Boundaries. there is much to say about why Green Belt land should be protected and why the Green Belt should be maintained, yet this section is presented as a fait accompli. I love walking across and having the Green Belt and useful Agricultural land so close to my North Leamington home and do not understand why it is being assumed that it the right thing to develop on it.

I do not believe that any building on our green belt land should be considered until all other options have been completely exhausted. Our green belt land is essential in preserving the identity of our town, ensuring our bio-diversity is maintained and providing a much needed green space; essential for our health and wellbeing. I do not believe that circumstances have changed since the last consultation and as such maintaining our green belt should remain a priority of the Local Plan.

Why was there no consultation on Issue S6 - A review of greenbelt boundaries? It seems that this was meant to be presented as a closed case, and to prevent people from voicing an opinion? A lot of countryside is being destroyed, and it seems unacceptable to continue with this trend, especially with green belts that are used by many locals for recreation.

I do not understand why there is no consultation for Q S6 review of green belt boundaries. The green belt land should be protected and maintained but this is supposedly a closed case. The area attracts affluent business people and businesses moving out of London. A key decision making point is due to the attraction of green belt open land. This is fundamentally against the long term benefit for all locals and local businesses.

The Parish council will be asking why there is no consultation question for ISSUE 6 Belt Boundaries. There is much to say about why green belt land should be protected and why the North Leamington Green Belt should be maintained, yet this section is presented as a closed case.