What are the scenarios?

Housing and business growth will place additional demands on policing in proportion to the level of any new development. Given the acknowledgement of increased demand for local services it is not the absolute level of development that is the issue for policing, but how the increasing requirement for public services is managed and how such management will ensure a suitable, modern policing infrastructure for Warwickshire.

In the event that it becomes necessary to consider housing development within the deep coal resource area to the south west of Coventry, including Burton Green and its surroundings, the mining position of any potential development sites would need to be given due consideration in order that any stability or other public safety issues are identified and addressed.

The underlying basis of the Local Plan consultation is fundamentally flawed as it has had regard to the proposal to abolish regional strategies.

The consultation makes no reference to objective assessments of housing need, presents inadequate information to the local community on the need for housing, or consider the requirement to accommodate development needs that may arise from neighbouring authorities.

The thrust of the document is not aligned with the Government's 'Planning for Growth' statement. This Plan should be proactive in driving and supporting growth and make every effort to identify and meet the housing, business and other development needs of the area. Only Scenario Three attempts to address this.
Authorities should work together to ensure that needs and opportunities that extend beyond, or cannot be met within their own boundaries are identified and accommodated in a sustainable way. The LEP wish to be fully engaged in the production of a Local Plan which is fit for purpose, adequately making provision for development needs, placing top priority on new investment and jobs.
A pro-growth local plan should not be viewed as inconsistent with the overarching objective for sustainable development and can still ensure adequate environmental protection.


The description of Scenario Three is not balanced.

The background papers have not established the level of need consistent with the Government's objective that development plans are 'pro-growth'.

A further consultation exercise should be undertaken providing evidence as to the need for new housing and economic development so that responses may be made on growth options that are aligned to sustainable development principles.

Although we do not have a preferred scenario we concur that which ever level of growth is adopted it must be the right type of development in the right place. For example it would be unsuitable to place highly vulnerable development such as mobile homes in an area that was at high probability of flood risk. A more suitable use would be a water-compatible use, such as amenity open space.

Scenario One, Two and Three
Regardless of the level of development there will always be an increased risk of flooding due to climate change.

The seventh point of the Important Issues from each scenario implies there will be building on farm land possibly causing flooding. If following the guidelines within PPS25 there should be no increase in flood risk from either pluvial or fluvial sources. It also implies money will go towards flood defence schemes. It must be made clear that flood defences should only protect existing development at risk of flooding. New flood defences should not be constructed to enable new development.

All three scenarios refer to building on farmland, which would be greenfield. Development on brownfield land also has the potential to increase flood risk due to the possibility of increased surface water run off or increased intensity of use therefore making less space for water. We therefore consider the opportunities, strengths and weaknesses of brownfield land for each option should also be considered. For example, scenario one offers little opportunity for derelict sites to be redeveloped however scenario three may have many. It must also be considered that some brownfield sites are also currently at risk of flooding and may not be suitable for vulnerable uses.

Also all three scenarios refer to new development generating money to go towards flood defence schemes, we presume this is referring to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). We would like to discuss this matter further in more detail with Warwick, possible at a meeting.

If Extra Care Housing/Supported Living is included in the housing numbers, then low levels of growth may prevent WCC from delivering the required numbers of ECH/SL which in turn would negatively impact on some of the most venerable people in society.

As the consultation paper and Sustainability Appraisal point out, the low growth scenario would keep impacts on green field sites to a minimum; on the other hand there it would provide fewer opportunities to bring in resources for enhancement or maintenance of the Historic Environment. The degree of impact, adverse or otherwise, will depend less on the extent of new development so much as upon where it is situated, although achievement of growth which has minimal unacceptable impact is likely to be more difficult with a high growth scenario.

An increase in the birth-rate, along with the impact of current housing developments, are already putting the supply of school places under considerable pressure across most areas of Warwick District. A limited programme of expansion is currently underway to cope with forecast pupil numbers based on up to date births data from Health. There are therefore very few parts of the district where additional new housing build would not result in the requirement for additional school capacity to be built also.

Biodiversity and geodiversity is not commented on within the suggest growth options. It is likely that the greater the growth option the greater the potential for impacting on WDC's natural resources. However, this not necessarily the case. It is the placement and layout of the development that matters. It is strongly recommend that once the volume and location of the development is known that up-to-date data on these and other proposed sites is gained to ensure that biodiversity and geodiversity can be uniformly assessed to support the location of any favoured areas. The level of growth will also be important in calculating the Green Infrastructure Delivery Plans and Community Infrastructure Levy.

Budbrooke PC acknowledge the fact that there will need to be growth of some scale at some point in the future and would support development within urban areas as opposed to large development in rural areas.
Towns have more resources and ability to increase the infrastructure which would be essential. When Planning Officers look at planning strategy there needs to be a greater consideration of infrastructure and the knock on impact.
The PC would prefer any potential development in rural areas to be limited to essential development where there is an identified need and would therefore have a preference for brownfield rather than greenfield sites.

There is a requirement for the preparation of cogent evidence to objectively assess whether Scenario 3, or a higher level of growth provision is required to meet the needs for housing in the District, and the need for economic development in the District during the Plan period.

Points out a distinction between land suitable for economic development defined in paragraph 4 of PPS4 and the definition used within the consultation draft as being for B1, B2 and B8. The government expects local authorities to plan positively for new development and prepare local plans with sufficient flexibility to respond to rapid shifts in demand or other economic changes. Local authorities should identify and meet housing, business and other development needs of the area.

I would suggest that very little development is actually NEEDED. There are many shops, offices and industrial units empty at the moment and I would like to know of the plan for these to be utilised before other developments are undertaken. Leamington town centre has several empty shops and student accommodation is being built on the site of the old bus station and this alone will free up dozens of houses currently being used by students of Warwick and Birmingham Universities.
I realise that the plan is to look ahead for 15 years, but none of us has a crystal ball and my worry is that things will be planned for in case they are needed and not because they are needed.
Where is the evidence of the need for more housing, shops, offices, industry etc?

I feel we would all too easily be caught in a spiral, as more housing requires more places of work and more places of work requires more housing. Added to that, there is no way that the two will correlate either. Whatever workplaces are developed, offices, workshops etc they will always bring workers with them, who will need to travel to get to work. Houses built will be bought by people who travel out of the area to get to work.

Taylor Wimpey are promoting land north of Milverton for a sustainable urban extension of 1,500 dwellings and key development principles have been drawn up to demonstrate that the site is deliverable.

The Scenarios for Growth should cover the period to 2028.

Scenario 3 meets population forecasts and provides for the amount of development required to support the local economy.

Growth will not influence jobs in the area.
Jobs and housing needs are national issues not local issues that the Council can influence.
The plan should be shelved until there is economic recovery.

There should be a scenario zero - if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Nothing should be decided until the Localism Bill is known, or until a business plan is in place that shows that the need exists and that capital funding exists.

A zero growth strategy should be adopted until the matter of traffic reductions in Warwick Town Centre is resolved.

In considering need, this should be based on what is needed by the community for the District, not what is required by developers. The need for development should have robust plans for infrastructure, so they can complement existing communities. The need must also be phased using land available for development first, before releasing any greenfield land or green belt land.