Q-S3.1: Please add any comments you wish to make about the Urban Capacity Study

Brownfield sites should, if at all practical, be used for redevelopment, rather than greenfield sites. Although some sites are more suited to business purposes, rather than dwellings. So this should be taken into account when redeveloping a brownfield site.

This is a real priority as long as strict care is taken over decontamination etc.

Q-S3.1: The Urban Capacity Study is a useful guidance as to the potential capacity. However it must always retain its proper place as being merely indicative. Ultimately the capacity and potential deliverability of much needed development is based on those who are willing to submit planning applications for development. Applications will be made by people who can deliver homes where they want/need them and the Council should always retain sight of this and not become overly guided the Council’s own hierarchy of locations. The Council could also look towards land which already has been developed but isn't classed as Brownfield (agricultural and forestry) as sites that could provide sustainable development.

Brownfield land for development must always take priority over greenfield land but any development designs need to reflect the character of the existing area.

The Urban Capacity Study should be worked up following the principles set out in the Local Plan Part One and the information then used to guide the development of Part 2 and the final formal Local Plan.

Building on brown field sites makes sense. Green field sites increase issues with carbon net zero, food security, having open spaces for leisure, decreases biodiversity and sometimes decreases tourist possibilities.

Using Brownfield Land for development is the only acceptable policy, the green belt should not be touched.

I object to the scale and scope of the propped housing development in the village of Wootton Wawen. I do not object to the principal of building homes, however, this this should be small pockets that amount to no more than a total of 100 homes. Brownfield development makes more sense than destroying the Green Belt. The Green Belt in the UK is a protected area of land around cities and towns that is designated for conservation and recreation. Housing development in this area will have negative consequences including: • Loss of green space: The Green Belt provides valuable green space for local communities and wildlife, and its loss to housing development would result in a reduction of such spaces, potentially leading to urbanization and the disappearance of valuable habitats. • Loss of openness: openness is capable of having both spatial and visual aspects – in other words, the visual impact of the proposal may be relevant, as does its volume. • Increased urban sprawl: Housing developments in the Green Belt would encourage the spread of urban areas into previously protected rural areas, contributing to urban sprawl and reducing the amount of green space available for recreation and conservation. • Damage to natural ecosystems: The construction of housing developments could result in the disturbance of soil and water systems, which could have negative impacts on local ecosystems and wildlife. • Decreased quality of life: The loss of green space could lead to an increased sense of crowding, a reduction in air quality, and increased traffic congestion, all of which can negatively affect quality of life for local residents. • Protection of agricultural land: The Green Belt contains valuable agricultural land that provides food and livelihoods for local communities. The loss of this land to housing development could harm local economies and reduce the country's food security. In conclusion, the Green Belt provides important benefits to local communities and the environment, and housing development in this area will result in significant negative consequences. Once we have lost areas of the Green Belt they are lost in perpetuity, therefore, it is important to maintain the Green Belt's protected status to ensure that these benefits are preserved for future generations. Brownfield sites tend to have better infrastructure.

I support directing development to brownfield sites if it reduces the need to develop greenfield land. But this is providing that it is not replacing viable SME's business premises with new housing.

All brownfield development opportunities should be explored before Green Belt is irrevocably destroyed and local communities lost.

Use brown sites only

With the dominance of on-line shopping and home delivery, town centres are dying and require regeneration. In City centres this has been achieved by enabling housing which has brought demand for service businesses which have grown up and brought City Centres back into use. There is no reason why this would not work across the SWLP area and our towns are in dire need of a clear vision for their future.

Essential that brownfield land is given greater priority for development.

Using brownfield land for residential development within settlements should be approved

I’m in favour of this over green belt development.

Whilst utilising brownfield land is obviously attractive, heed needs to be taken of its suitability for the types of development under consideration. Brownfield land can contain all sorts of problems (e.g. the recent Lenches Meadow upgrade - off the Warwick Road in S on A - discovered asbestos). There is no point coming up with attractive ideas only to find expensive nasties in the ground that rule out cost effective development.

Brownfield Land for development should always be used first before any consideration of using greenbelt land or land adjacent to established towns & villages.

There should be a presumption in favour of redeveloping previously used land and avoiding green field sites all over the county

The ‘Brownfield first’ pledge is not referenced in the Study or the main consultation. It should be more explicitly referenced alongside a recognition that Green Belt Land does not have to be released simply because numbers are not to be easily accommodated elsewhere. Greenfield development of executive style homes is much more attractive to developers but this conflicts with the actual need for affordable housing in towns and cities where most people work. The Government’s Brownfield First pledge should be reflected in the co-operate with other local authorities, ensuring that the larger conurbations are not avoiding the need for creative brownfield solutions in the areas where people work and instead shunting their housing shunting their housing need out to other areas where developers can make a bigger profit.

The brownfield first policy should be adopted when considering in the duty to co-operate with neighboring local authorities, especially the large conurbations bordering the Green Belt in the West Midlands - as the actual need is for low cost housing in the cities where people work - not more executive housing in the Green belt. This will enable the local plan to better meet the Sustainability Strategic objectives that the South Warwickshire local plan is aiming to deliver.

The Brownfield First pledge is not referenced in the Study and should be prominent alongside a recognition that Green Belt land should not be an easy first option.

Strongly support the development of brownfield sites over green belt. Cubbington Neighbourhood Plan survey results • 99% wanted open spaces preserved. and a significant majority wanted to protect existing nature, environment and open land, and landscape views. With potential pressures ie. in-fill post HS2 between Cubbington and new railway line, there is need to protect the natural environment and protect what is left of the green belt buffer and landscape views. Brownfield development should also reduce traffic, noise and air pollution when situated next to amenities, schools, etc. On behalf Cubbington Parish Council

This questions asks for comments about the Urban Capacity Study. The study has been done in recognition of the need to use urban land efficiently. The Brownfield First pledge is not referenced anywhere in the study or the main consultation. It should be recognised that green belt does not have to be released simply because numbers are easily accommodated elsewhere. The Government has made a “brownfield first” pledge 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.

The Issues and Options Consultation does not offer a specific opportunity to comment on issues around brownfield land. However, the Urban Capacity Study speaks to this issue and is considered in the section of the Issues and Options relating to the use of brownfield land and so these comments (which relate to brownfield development rather than the Urban Capacity Study per se) are presented here. The Issues and Options refers (page 40) to the fact that small parcels of brownfield land are most commonly found within existing built-up areas but also that, “sometimes large areas of rural brownfield land, such as airfields in the countryside, can become available.” In South Warwickshire it is also the case that a large area of brownfield land has become available immediately adjacent to the southern edge of Coventry, in the form of Coventry Airport. It is in a highly sustainable location, well integrated with the rest of the City, and presents an opportunity that is unique in South Warwickshire (indeed regionally) in terms of its ability to accommodate large scale development on previously developed land effectively as part of the urban area. It represents a development opportunity of strategic importance, and that should be recognised and promoted throughout the Plan. On a related matter, the Issues and Options Consultation similarly does not offer a specific opportunity to comment on issues connected with the Green Belt. This is understandable in circumstances where the technical work around Green Belt review has not yet been undertaken, and so the Issues and Options are blind to this matter. The Issues and Options give a clear indication that such work will be undertaken, and this is essential. It is of particular relevance to the Airport which remains, as an anomaly, within the Green Belt. The current Warwick Local Plan created a situation where the Airport was left as a residual finger of previously developed Green Belt land surrounded on three sides by existing or allocated development and performing no useful Green Belt function. The recent grant of planning permission here for a Gigafactory demonstrates how the Airport as a whole can successfully and sensitively be developed and make an important contribution to meeting development needs in South Warwickshire and indeed the wider region. Any Green Belt review should consider the Airport carefully, with the logical outcome being that it is removed from the Green Belt.

If development is needed, it seems more appropriate to Brownfield Land rather than Green Belt. Priority should be given to identifying suitable locations that do minimal damage.

No answer given

Option b The Government has also made a “brownfield first” pledge (see letter attached dated 05.12.2022 from Sec of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities) 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.

There should be a prioritisation of development and intensification of development on existing brownfield sites rather than in the Greenbelt.

Building on Green Belt skews development away from affordable housing in the areas where people work. The Government has also made a “brownfield first” pledge 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. This question asks for comments about the Urban Capacity Study, a 200-page document separate to the main consultation. The study has been done in recognition of ‘the need to use urban land efficiently’. I note that the ‘Brownfield First’ pledge is not referenced in the study or the main consultation, and it should be more explicitly referenced alongside a recognition that the Green Belt land does not have to be released simply because numbers are not to be easily accommodated elsewhere.

The question asks for comments about the Urban Capacity Study. The Study has been done in recognition of ‘the need to use urban land efficiently’. The ‘Brownfield First’ pledge is not referenced in the Study or in the main consultation and argues that it should be more explicitly referenced alongside a recognition that Green Belt land does not have to be released simply because numbers are not to be easily accommodated elsewhere.