Q-P1.1: Do you agree with the proposed broad content of the Part 1 plan?
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
The arguments proposed in Part One are not sustainable. The allocations of housing is ill-conceived. A typical example is the village of Wootton Wawen. This has been allocated up to five-hundred houses in a small village. The disproportionately large allocation is is founded on questionable logic and flawed assumptions that close proximity to a railway stations is environmentally preferable to the wholesale destruction of Green Belt.
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No building on Green Belt land should be allowed due to the importance of this landscape to the natural beauty of green spaces and the positive psychological impact large green areas have on local residents and visitors to the area.
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
William Davis are concerned that the broad scope of the Part 1 Plan is potentially too limited and by splitting plan making could leave to a lengthier overall plan production timetable than if a single plan is prepared. This has certainly been the case in Northamptonshire, where Part 2 plans were adopted years after the Part 1 plans. Whereas, South Worcestershire has demonstrated that a single joint plan can be achieved within reasonable timescales. Nevertheless, it is agreed that the allocation of sites necessary for short term development should form part of the Part 1 Plan to ensure a healthy five year housing land supply. The SWLP should be mindful to provide sufficient allocations to mitigate any slippage or unexpected change in circumstances rather than rely on sites that are only deemed developable inadvertently being required to be considered deliverable in reality at Year 6 of plan adoption. Section 1.4 refers to strategic sites as those ‘critical’ to the delivery of the Plan. It is considered that sites that are critical should be extended to those required in the early part of the plan period to ensure the overall robustness of the Plan and include sites of circa 100 dwellings and over.
There is a fundamental flaw in the approach that has been taken so far. This means that the Part 1 plan is built on a false premise which assumes that Green Belt development is necessary. This premise is false because: (i) It is not in line with current Government policy. (ii) It is not based on a realistic and current assessment of housing need. (iii) The evidence generated to support the premise is derived from desktop studies which do not reflect local realities or the value placed on an area by a local community. (iv) It uses data from the part 1 consultation in a misleading way to suggest local support for Green Belt development. (v) It fails to recognise and value the contribution of Green Belt land. (vi) It fails to recognise and value the contribution of high quality agricultural land at a time of food insecurity. (vii) It gives no visibility or weight to options which would avoid Green Belt development. To reiterate our response to Q-V3.2 we believe that the SWLP planning process should be halted while the background and options are revisited in light of the national policy direction on the Green Belt.
We have a fundamental problem with Issue I1: HEDNA/Sustainability Appraisal See Q-I 1
We have a fundamental problem with Issue I1: HEDNA/Sustainability Appraisal. See Q-I 1
We have a fundamental problem with Issue I1: HEDNA/Sustainability Appraisal. See Q-I 1
Yes, MSL support the allocation of other sites as necessary for short-term development. These sites should include those proposed to be allocated as reserve sites within the Site Allocations Plan, such as MSL’s site at Hampton Lucy: Policy HAMP.A. The site’s suitability, availability and deliverability has therefore been assessed, and found to be acceptable. The site is to be released for development when required by the District Council. The requirement to allocate sites through the South Warwickshire Local Plan should be the trigger to release the reserve sites within the Site Allocations Plan, and this should be confirmed within the South Warwickshire Local Plan Part 1 Document.
No answer given