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

There was no consultation question for issue 6 - a review of the green belt boundaries. The question of protection of the green belt is vitally important. It is politically important for the councils to ensure there isn’t a spread into green belt land in the north leamington area. We have just seen the problems with food production and limited supply. Retaining the land to be able to create adequate food supply is critical, as is the need to retain green belt as part of our heritage. As a long term resident of over 50 years, I remember these towns and each had its own identity. My late husband was brought up nearby and spent most of his 90 years here. These plans risk losing the identity of the individual towns, which is so important.

Objection: The South Warwickshire Local Plan Process should fully examine all other options including new settlement opptions outside the green belt. This area should maintain its green belt status if it meets any one of the 5 purposes of green belt land as defined in the national planning policy framework. At the outset of this information it is claimed that the following vision/mission is the aim: A climate resilient and net zero carbon South Warwickshire A well-designed and beautiful South Warwickshire A healthy, safe and inclusive South Warwickshire A well-connected South Warwickshire A biodiverse and environmentally resilient South Warwickshire Removing the green belt fields in North Leamington - Milverton and Blackdown would - result in a significant loss of stored carbon if the land is built upon, land based climate resilience comes, first and foremost from green spaces. - there is no better design than than that of mother nature and a well balanced ecosystem. There is nothing beautiful about a sprawling, overdeveloped town. Leamington is becoming such a place and we are in danger of becoming a new Milton Keynes. Ugly, unsightly and overdeveloped. Nature needs a place in our town - nature needs wild spaces, the population of Leamington needs wild spaces. - there is nothing healthy about overdevelopment, there is nothing healthy about building more houses for more households to burn fossil fuels and bring more cars with more pollution into the area. Wild spaces and green spaces are there for everyone to use. Building on green land will segregate town and magnify the differences between north and south of the river. Development should be encouraged and supported where it is needed most - North Leamington does not need development, it needs to remain and green boundary for the town and for EVERYONE to enjoy. This land can NOT be enjoyed by everyone if it is built upon. If the land in Milverton and Blackdown is built upon everyone loses. - green spaces and wild spaces encourage biodiversity. HS2 developments are causing horrific damage to our green land. Further developments will impact this negativity even further. Green open space and woodland should be easily accessible to the local community as they provide a valuable asset for health and wellbeing, as well as benefits for nature. The people of Leamington work hard to protect nature and their local natural spaces - we have conservation areas and protections with good enforcement of these guidlines and rules. There is something deeply unsettling and dystopian about the way we have to constantly speak up and fight for our natural spaces. Surely it's the natural spaces which must come first? Developers will sell a story of housing needs and affordable spaces - they are the only winners because the true needs for this space is to leave it to nature. I have walked those fields hundreds of times and seen, deer, owls, hawks, rabbits, voles, newts, field mice and bats - species that need to be nurtured not encroached upon. We will lose so much if this space is "developed". Green belt boundaries around Leamington need to be preserved and protected for all of us to enjoy. Green spaces build and strengthen communities - something that was cemented and proved during covid lockdowns. Mental health is a big issue for us all, green spaces allow us headspace - give us peace and calm. We must protect what we have. Development must come from brown space available within the town. To build on green land is not development - it's destruction.

I fail to see why there is a need for a single strategy, e.g. Rail Corridors or Economy. The main decision seems to me to be what proportion of the total increase in housing needed is to come from completely new settlements of for bolt-ons to existing settlements and infill. I would argue for the large majority to come from completely new settlements:- designable for 20 minute neighbourhoods, latest technologies for energy consumption and other technologies, free choice of locations for economy and sustainability, preserves the cultural and historical culture of South Warwickshire towns and villages. That is not to say that some developments around Rail, Road or infills are to be avoided completely. Each individual site needs to be considered in its own right in the next stages of the Consultation process.

The green belt should only be adjusted using a minimalist, as needed approach, we will never get it back once given over to other uses. The timescale for the proposed local plan is too long to predict changes in needs of the local population and wider society. I don't believe we should use possible requirements in almost 30 years time as a justification to give up significant amounts of the green belt today. The green belt should only be given up at the time of need if all other options have been exhausted at that point in time. We are coming out of a period of significant and unpredicted social change as a result of the pandemic. Changes in working and other practices resulting from this may persist and, for example, mean that there is a reduced need for travel, office, retail and parking space which may provide significant amounts of brownfield sites for future development.

Argument 1. The Green Belt around North Leamington fulfils the stated purpose of Green Belt land. The five purposes of Green Belt land are to: ● check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas ● prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another ● assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment ● preserve the setting and special character of historic towns ● assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Argument 2. The Green Belt around North Leamington is a valued open space. In surveys residents say that the open Green Belt location is the thing they value most about living in the area, with benefits for both physical and mental health. It is easily accessible on foot from North Leamington so many people can access the public rights of way across the fields. Use of these footpaths increased markedly during lockdown and these high levels of use continue today. The agricultural land continues to provide rural employment and undergo diversification of farming techniques. Its continued use for modern arable, grazing and wildlife refuge helps preserve the characteristics of the rural Victorian village of Old Milverton enjoyed by so many. The recreational, educational and health benefits to those in surrounding urban and suburban areas are important now more than ever. Argument 3. The farmland is high quality agricultural land and makes an important contribution to sustainability and security of food supply. Recent Government policy has stated that farming and food production make an important contribution to sustainable development. The highest concentration of ALC Grade 2 land around Leamington Spa and Warwick is to the north and east of Leamington Spa. The land making up these sites is, therefore, considered to be a scarce resource of high value for sustainable food production. The Government seeks to protect against the loss of such land from non-agricultural development. The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that “Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality”; a policy which will continue to grow in significance as the increasing cost of imported wheat and grain drives up domestic food production needs. Argument 4. The proposals would lead to a merging of the boundaries of Kenilworth and Leamington. Developing the North Leamington Green Belt would significantly reduce the belt of land that separates Kenilworth from Leamington, particularly in view of the Thickthorn housing development now underway and other recent housing and commercial developments in the area. The proximity of HS2 developments in neighbouring parishes is also strongly felt. Despite this, numerous other sites along the A452 have been put forward in the Call for Sites. Once land is removed from the Green Belt for development this cannot be undone and a precedent is set which makes it easier for adjoining swathes of land to be built on. Building more new houses on the outskirts of Leamington will exacerbate the current high levels of traffic congestion which has come with the new housing developments south of the town. The original layout of the town and the subsequent development in the 19th and 20th centuries precludes the construction of major new cross town access routes. The joint Green Belt study of 2015 highlights the important contribution to preventing the merging of Leamington, Kenilworth and Coventry that this piece of the countryside (Broad Area 3) makes by preventing urban sprawl, safeguarding the countryside and preserving the special character of these historic towns. Argument 5. Similar proposals were rejected less than six years ago. The Planning Inspector’s 2017 response to the current Local Plan for Warwick District states that there is a need “to maintain the separate identity of surrounding villages such as Leek Wootton and Cubbington and avoid significant reductions in the gap to Kenilworth” (p. 18, 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” (p.34, para 201). This high value area has already suffered significant damage to openness and character with the construction of the HS2 railway line causing interruption of farmland and wildlife habitat. Further adverse development in the area would compound the significant adverse impacts that the Planning Inspector referred to in 2017. If anything, arguments for maintaining the Green Belt’s contribution to the openness of the countryside, food production and biodiversity are stronger now than six years ago when these comments were made. Argument 6. It 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” (see letter above). The utility of the Green Belt around North Leamington is a genuine constraint on development. Argument 7. It skews development away from affordable housing in the areas where people work. The Government has also made a “brownfield first” pledge (see letter above) which should inform the way that the District Councils respond to unmet housing need in other authorities. Greenfield development of executive style homes is much more attractive to developers but this is in tension with the actual need for affordable housing in the towns and cities where most people work. The Government’s “brownfield first” pledge should be reflected in the duty to co-operate with other local authorities, ensuring that larger conurbations are not avoiding the need for creative brownfield solutions in the areas where people work and instead shunting their housing need out to other areas where developers can make a bigger profit. Argument 8. The process is flawed because all five options presume Green Belt development without acknowledging the significant constraints involved. The Issues and Options consultation puts forward five “spatial growth options”. All of these would involve development of some areas of Warwickshire’s Green Belt, and all of them suggest North Leamington Green Belt as an area of ‘significant urban extension’. This is in line with the outcomes from a series of spatial growth workshops which revealed a preference to promote development at scale within the Green Belt. However the premise of these workshops is grossly flawed. The proposition that Green Belt serves no legitimate function and can be ‘switched off’ as an academic exercise flies in the face of the significant contributions that Warwick District Council and Stratford District Council have themselves noted that Green Belt designation makes. The Green Belt puts major restrictions – for good reason – on what can be built where. The spatial growth workshops did explore growth options where Green Belt development was not permitted. However none of these feature in the current five spatial growth options. This is contrary to recent Government announcements, the 2015 greenbelt review and the 2017 response by the Planning Inspector. Argument 9. The assessments of the two proposed development sites in the North Leamington Green Belt are opaque and inaccurate. These assessments are in a 477 page appendix to the Sustainability Appraisal (pages B68 and B74) and are not referenced in the main consultation. Both state that development at these locations would be “unlikely to lead to coalescence of settlements”. However any development here would subsume Old Milverton and Blackdown into Leamington. It would also take the outskirts of Leamington up to the southern outskirts of Kenilworth, particularly the development at Thickthorn and other sites nearby. This is precisely what the Green Belt is designed to protect against. We are also told to expect “a minor negative impact on the recreational experience associated with these, and surrounding, footpaths”. If these sites are developed there will no longer be any recreational experience to be had from using the footpaths as these will (presumably) become pavements through a housing development. Moreover, this analysis assumes that the only important function that this area serves is recreation which, as we have noted, is a coincidental benefit of the designated actual function of this Green Belt area. We think it is therefore a serious inaccuracy to call this a ‘minor negative impact’ and discloses a strategy which would significantly reduce the need for urban regeneration in favour of greenfield development.

It concerns me that the document is written in general terms which could be interpreted as the Council wishes, at a later date. It is wordy and difficult to understand, in parts. Maybe a smokescreen. Whatever steps are taken I believe existing sites and redevelopment of Brownfield sites should provide sufficient capacity for growth. My sense is that lower budget housing should be a priority, which is suited to Brownfields. Ant development of Green Belt at any location will eradicate natural boundaries between existing settlements.

a) The South Warwickshire Local plan process should fully examine all other options, including new settlement options outside of the green belt before starting to review Green Belt boundaries in South Warwickshire. b) 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.

CONSIDERED IMPORTANT TO ENSURE NEW SETTLEMENTS ARE ADJACENT TO RAIL AND MAIN ROADS AND REVIEW UNNECESSARY GREEN BELT

The UK Green Belt management is one of the finest and most successful British Planning Policies of the last 50 years and more. All the Spatial Growth Options proposed in the South Warks Local Plan ignore or reject this important national guidance - without suitable explanation. It is necessary that, at least, an additional option is included which respects the accepted and current national planning guidance on Green Belts and aims to achieve the five purposes of Green Belts. This is crucial before any study reviewing Green Belt boundaries is considered. Particularly importantaspects to be prioritised include - : the retention of existing gaps between settlements; : the impact of any proposals on long distance views; : and the protection of the River Avon valley and its enclosing slopes. An additional concern: Do not base your strategies on the selection of sites identified by landowners/developers. As you know, their interests are very different to those of the wider population. Use planning policies and thresholds and not individual self interest.

QS8.1 Small devlopments below 'threshold' have a cumulative impact on infrastructure which is often not considered. For example at Welford on Avon.

We have considered the living in the SWLP but not the dead! We need burial ground provision. In addition new development needs to consider education and health to meet the well connected objective.

My comments relate to the threat of building on the Green Belt in North Leamington (Milverton and Blackdown). 1) As a Decision Scientist, I am puzzled that none of the options outlined (Option 1 - Option 5 inclusive) consider an option to leave the Green Belt undeveloped. Why is this the case? At the moment all five options look like a decision has already been made to develop the Green Belt (with each option a variation on this theme). 2) In terms of footpaths and access to open countryside, the current local plan states that it will protect what already exists. However, the track record of private developers protecting footpaths and access is woeful across the whole of the UK (see Private Eye issues over the last three years for examples) and there is no reason to assume developers in Warwickshire will treat the developed Green Belt any differently. 3) According to the National Planning Policy Framework, an area should maintain its Green Belt status if it meets any one of the 5 purposes of Green Belt land. The Council's proposals appear to make a different assumption (that development should be permitted where all five purposes are not met). This appears to be contrary to the National Policy Planning Framework. Why is this the case? If any one of the 5 purposes are met, Green Belt status should be preserved. 4) Site development along the A452 will erode the currently distinct boundaries between Leamington and Kenilworth. The creation of such ribbon development would be to the detriment of both towns and their current distinct identities. 5) HS2 has already greatly affected the Green Belt and, in my view, any further development would be excessive. I recognise that HS2 has promised re-planting of trees but the Council should consider that 60% of re-planted trees die through a lack of care and attention as they grow. I note that nowhere have HS2 made any commitments to such nurture. 6) The Green Belt comprises high quality farmland which will be threatened by the proposed developments (in any of the current options) and I find this puzzling at a time when food security is extremely important for the UK.

I am very much against any proposal to use the green belt area in North Leamington for future housing. The whole purpose of the green belt is to prevent urban creep, and the exceptional circumstances that allow this are not justified or proven in this area. The green belt should be preserved, it provides a vital resource for walkers that link to other traffic free areas such as the Grand Union canal, right through to Newbold Comyn. Brownfield exist in Leamington/Warwick and higher density housing should be considered first - allowing the Green Belt to be protected.

The Spatial Growth Options are illustrated indicatively on the accompanying diagrams, and it is clear the symbols for growth are not to be understood as reflecting any decisions around the precise distribution of development. It will be important when more detailed site selection takes place to have careful regard to pursuing the selected Growth Option fully and effectively and optimising opportunities. One example in this regard is the provision of strategic industrial and logistics development along the M40 corridor where there are more extensive opportunities for growth than shown schematically on the Option diagrams. One such opportunity in this regard which should be supported is land north west of Junction 15 which was promoted through the Call for Sites (response form and site location drawing reference 6484-16 were submitted). As indicated on the interactive map it was given the reference number 44 by the Councils and extends to about 60ha. It is extremely well suited to meeting the strategic industrial and logistics requirement in this part of the Plan area.

I wish to object to the proposal to consider development in the green belt around the northern boundary of leamington spa. Any development will set a precedent and with no natural boundaries between leamington and the A46, it is inevitable that once the precedent is set, development will continue on green belt land leading to unrestricted sprawl subsuming the village of old milverton and effectively merging the towns of leamington and kenilworth. Furthermore, the current green belt offers easy access to the countyside for a substantial number of existing leamington residents with footpaths through the countryside in easy walking distance. Development within the green belt will make this access unrealistic for many residents at least without getting into their cars causing more pollution and traffic congestion. Lastly, the land within the green belt north of leamington is high quality farmland and should be retained for growing the crops necessary for this country and the local plan should concentrate on development of less productive land and brown field land of which their are many opportunities within the current boundaries of leamington spa.

* I think that the South Warwickshire Local Plan Process should consider all other options, of which there must be many, before starting to consider any changes to the existing Green Belt boundaries. * It is too often the easy option to reduce the Green Belt boundaries whereas it should be done only as a very last resort. Green Belt is precious and has been under attack for many years, often with very poor results for local communities. * Any area should retain its Green Belt status if it meets any one of the five purposes of Green Belt as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework.

It must be hugely difficult to arrive at a housing strategy with the political environment constantly shifting. As a result it seems that this plan is now out of step with the current political direction and in direct conflict with a speech made by Rishi Sunak as prime minister the day after the plan was published. This speech put far more emphasis on maintaining the character of an area and less on achieving housing targets and this is in no way reflected within the current plan. The development of large new settlement would have a devastating effect on both the character of the local area but also the district as well, extending urban development at the expense of green belt or rural areas. I would personally support the expansion of existing settlements in support of local economies and maintaining character of what is predominantly a rural district. Provided that incremental development maintained the character of the area then it should be supported. I believe that basing the plan on the rail corridors is good academically but will fail in practice - people will use the railways where fundamentally convenient but prefer the flexibility of the car. Census data collected as part of the tanworth NDP highlights this fact, whereby the parish has 4 stations but still predominantly by the use of the car. The development of wood end as a future settlement, along with others, would therefore seem inappropriate as driven by rail corridors, having a fundamental impact on the character of the district, as well as in some cases giving up highly valued green belt land

I am specifically opposed to development of land in the greenbelt areas i and around Weston under Wetherley and other small greenbelt villages due to the impact on the rural character on the North Leamington Greenbelt. The climate emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land, there are many other ways to mitigate against the climate emergency without developing on greenbelt land, if anything, that could be used as a reason NEVER to develop on greenbelt land as we need green areas for carbon capture and health and welfare for wildlife and plants and ecosystems and to keep the integrity of the rural areas. There is no option to comment on issue S6 ( greenbelt boundaries). I do not feel it is necessary or appropriate to redefine greenbelt boundaries. The issue should not have been included within this consultation without an option for comment. If every time the Greenbelt is just whitewashed and altered to suit whoever wants to develop it, there is no point having a Greenbelt designated area. The Greenbelt is there for an excellent reason, as is stated in your consultation, so absolutely should not be altered in any circumstances, as there are alternatives that are not being prioritised.

Issue S6 has not requested any input, albeit that the removal of Green Belt is a significant part of the assumptions within the majority of the proposals being made. This issue should be clear and central to ensure that the protection of the Green Belt land is maintained.

1. Given the climate change agenda, the need for serious long-term strategic planning that is 'futures-focused', and the need to protect access to local footpaths and open countryside without recourse to a car, as well as agricultural land, the 5 options in the consultation fail to protect the Green Belt. It is vital that the Green Belt is protected and preserved without urban development for future generations. 2. It is vital that land that is already in use is reviewed and considered for new homes, which are closer to (rather than further away from) town centres. It is important that the deep changes to how we shop, buy and source goods is seriously considered, enabling streets in our towns, shopping parks and industrial parks to be changed into varied and flexible housing schemes, which do not require permanent ownership of a car to access services. 3. We need to prevent the merging of well-defined local communities, which then lose their distinct boundaries and unique identities, e.g. Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth must not be merged any further. 4. The impact on transport networks really need to be given very serious consideration. Having lived in Leamington for over 35 years, I am very troubled by the gridlock we are now experiencing thanks to the developments between the Shires and the M40. Frankly, the massive development in that area is nothing short of a blight on the landscape and disastrous for movement about the local area.

The south Warwickshire local planprocess should fully investigate and examine all other options, including, unused empty dwellings, possibility of young and single people to live with their parents, share accommodation as was done successfully with Ukeranians refugees, out side of the green belt. Before starting to reviewgreen belt boundaries in South Warwickshire which could fruitfully be used to grow much needed food. An area should maintain its designated green belt status it it meets any one of the 5 purposes of green belt as defined in National planning policy framework. The preservation of green belt area are more important than ever before in favour of reducing air pollution, healthy living and to save our planet earth for our future generations. The local councils should think more about the changing world today. More people are now being encouraged to work from home. So they are able to keep an eye on their elderly and children more than before. As such more and more families can afford to live in shared/ extended families, using less energy and helping each other?? And enjoying green fields / areas around them.

This regards Issue S6 on the review of Greenbelt Boundaries. I couldn't see a Questions section for that issue so I'm writing my comments here. I wanted to present an argument additional to the ones the Joint Parish Council has already put up. I wanted to stress the role of the greenbelt areas in the phycological wellbeing of the residents, it's positive impact on their every day life, the inspiration it provides to local artists (If you have ever visited the annual art in the park in Leamignton you will see how the beautiful nature of the local greenbelt has served as a muse to the artists) and the motivation, purpose and sense of pride that nature instills on the local residents to care for and protect the area. Below is a personal view on the impact of the Greenbelt nature. Winter morning, still dark, bitter cold. Nursey run, crack of dawn we both yawn. Feeling sorry for waking her up. Away from her bed away from my hug. Working mom, five days of the week. Missing her growing, is it worth it you think? Round the corner, down Sandy Lane I behold. A flaming sunrise of pink and rose gold. Through the mist, rolling fields are revealed. Covered in frost so peaceful, unreal. My worries escape my mind and I smile. Leaving my country, my friends seems worthwhile. She gets to grow up by this beautiful place. How excited she gets watching lambs playing chase! Our strolls accompanied by goldfinch’s song. In the summers the swallows are dancing along. Bright yellow carpets of rape in the spring. Against a blue sky we skip and we sing. And when the sky is moody, howling and grey. Its imposing power in flaunting display. The oaks in the field are standing their ground. Providing us shelter from the storm all around. Dropped her off, on the way back, my heart lightened. The glimmering pastures assure me she’ll feel as delighted. A new day of work lap top on, news and hot drink. Front page, “Greenbelt Under Threat” and I sink sink sink.

I am commenting on issue S6, the review of green belt boundaries. I am raising an objection to any review of boundaries. The Green Belt was introduced for very good reasons and has been a core principle behind development proposals in this country. The 5 principles are as relevant today, as ever, if not more so with the pressure on finding areas for new development. They remain embedded in National policy. The local plan rightly states that maximum use should be made of brownfield sites but by suggesting a review of green belt boundaries risks a major precedent and the possible introduction of a 'way in' for developers which could become difficult to stop. The five principles behind the green belt must all be upheld - they are there for a reason - and not divided up so if an area falls on one principle, that is the door open for development, which has been suggested. If an area meets just one of the 5 principles, that is sufficient to retaining its green belt status. The green belt must be preserved to protect urban sprawl and to maintain and enhance the natural flora and fauna, a lot of which continues to be lost and not replaced. The positives that the green belt afford, such as the various allotment areas in north Leamington which provide huge community benefits. The areas of green belt that provide access to the countryside have huge amenity benefit. Its preservation is key to locking in carbon. It is crucial that the local plan looks at all and every option before looking at the green belt. I appreciate that this is no easy task but certain things must remain sacrosant.

Should Weston under Wetherley be considered in the future, we would like to raise the following points: - * roads are narrow and windy and unsuitable for widening. (Passing between listed buildings). * village has already been doubled in size by a new development * People live here because of access to the green belt with its benefit on health and well being. * Warwickshire Wildlife Trust has already invested money, time and effort in providing green corridors. This would be negated by a significant development * infrastructure would need to be significantly increased with an escalation of building costs. * HS2 location and development has already had a serious detrimental effect on the green belt, and of course, on the land previously farmed. * much of the area put forward for potential development is a flood plain. Although unsuitable for building, any flooding does nourish the land to the benefit of pastures and crops. * the effect on vehicle journeys due to diversions over the prolonged period required by a large development would have a serious effect on emissions and, consequently, climate change. * the creation of HS2 has already caused major disruption to and destruction of this area. To expect us to lose any more green areas including ancient woodland would be unreasonable. The rural nature of the village should be protected.

Concerns about the concentration of both employment hubs and potential new sites around both Southam and the south-east of the county.

Further commentary to Issue S9 We support Option S9b. It is clearly essential that the Part 1 Plan should include a fresh review of all settlement boundaries.

The Meon Vale Residents Association make representations to the Issues and Options Consultation on the SWLP expressing serious concerns about the proposals in all the strategic development options for the significant urban extension for housing and employment growth at Long Marston Airfield and Meon Vale on the grounds of: 1. The proposal would result in an unplanned new town with about 8 – 10,000 homes (3500 already approved at LMA and 1500 at MV) and a population of about 20,000 people and up to 60 hectares of additional employment land. 2. The proposed development area is poorly located in relation to the strategic road network and lacks the potential for access by rail. 3. The recent feasibility study has demonstrated that the reopening of the rail line from Stratford on Avon 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 result in the coalescence of the new villages of Meon Vale and Long Marston Airfield in an incremental and amorphous manner. 8. 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. 9. The development would be visible from and impact on the setting of the AONB.

It is clear that the South Warwickshire Local Plan contains plans for areas which meet enough of the five purposes of Green Belt that they should not be developed as proposed. The Plan should thus fully examine all other options before reviewing Green Belt boundaries in this area.

Development of currently designated Greenbelt land around North Leamington and specifically around Weston Under Wetherley should not be an option that is considered by the plan. The impact of developing this greenbelt land would have a significant adverse impact on the nature and character of the area affected. The damage and harm to the envrionment counteracts the climate emergency argument to develop this area.. Citing the climate emergency is a deeply flawed and weak argument to support development of the greenbelt land. The plan contains a planned review of current greenbelt boundaries however there is no justifiable reason to do this but there is no option for the public to make comment on this. I understand that fewer than 600 people responded to the first consultation and this cannot be considered representative of the population of the area affected by the proposed plan and so should not be considered a basis for progressing plan options or for deciding to review greenbelt boundaries

The South Warwickshire Local Plan Process should fully examine all other options, including new settlement options outside the Green Belt, before starting a study to review Green Belt boundaries in South Warwickshire. An area should maintain its Green Belt status if it meets any one of the 5 purposes of Green Belt, as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework.