Issue and Options 2023
Search form responses
Results for The Burman Family search
New searchThis question needs to be dealt with in two different ways. There should be a policy relating specifically to the towns and larger settlements and a further policy dealing with the rural area and the different settlements. You will see our answers to various questions above which bear on tenure and type. For the rural areas whilst there needs to be housing provision by unit across the board, there should not be a predominance of one bedroomed housing units because of the need to accommodate families in three / four bed housing and also the need to provide for bungalows and housing for the disabled in the various locations in the rural area. Much of the rural area lies in Green Belt and for those larger settlements that lie in the Green Belt there must be a much more flexible approach to housing growth to provide for both local needs and long term needs in the Plan period stretching to 2050. Table 12 for market housing seems appropriate but realistically the four bed provision should be 20%.
selected
selected
selected
This can be dealt with by a proper “needs assessment” for each settlement and then the adoption of an appropriate policy, with some flexibility, for inclusion in the strategy for growth for the rural area.
selected
selected
selected
Q-H3: This needs more rigorous analysis, probably by external consultants, to report upon the needs for future populations up to 2050. Appropriately worded policies can then flow from that Needs Assessment.
Q-H4.1: No, we do not agree because the shortfall needs to relate to the whole Plan period up to 2050 and there should be no cut-off at 2031. In addition, there needs to be the shortfall needs for Coventry and to an extent Solihull. Q-H4.2: This is an appropriate time to re-assess the actual boundaries of the HMA that are applicable to South Warwickshire because there will be some “in-commuting” from other surrounding Districts which need to be taken into account. This is often the most heavily fought part of the Local Plan Inquiry and once again there needs to be a robust External Consultant report advising the South Warwickshire authority on the needs and requirements for the whole of the Plan period up to 2050.
No answer given
No answer given
Q-T2: Bearing in mind the answers that we have given above, we would reiterate that the settlement of Claverdon, with its train station and link back to Warwick Parkway and the main London-Birmingham rail route is important. In this respect the upgrading of stations, with the provision for appropriate car parking, is an essential feature of providing sustainable travel in this part of South Warwickshire. Q-T3: For the reasons given above, the provision of new employment next to rail routes and particularly rail stations such as at Claverdon are vitally important and provide proper planning synergy and actually the fulfilment of changing, where possible, car travel to train travel
Whilst we accept generally the strategic objective there is no strategic objective that focuses on the existing train lines in the two Districts and most particularly on the existing station at Warwick Parkway and most particularly on the settlement of Hatton Park which is very close-by. Given the size and extent of Hatton Park, and the closeness of Warwick Parkway, it could reasonably be said in planning terms that the settlement enjoys a sustainable position on a main line train route and a main road frontage. There is in fact no specific “Sustainability objective” and certainly no objective focused on the benefits of rail travel which is a clear error in this Plan at this stage.
It seems to us that the Plan lacks a “moderate positive impact” key likely impact as you only have two positives and effectively three negative impacts so we believe that the chart is deficient and should be amended.
Issue I2: We would comment that focusing new infrastructure on existing transport routes such as rail and stations, and closely connected settlements such as Hatton Park, would be the best use of scarce resources, particularly where new infrastructure could be accommodated easily within a reasonable expansion of Hatton Park. Q-I2: There are opportunities within the settlement of Hatton Park and its extension to include local forms of employment most related to farming and the settlement itself. Q-I5: This really is one of the most important parts of this emerging Local Plan and really seems to have been dismissed in the two paragraphs which discuss it. All Local Plans are critically assesed by the Planning Inspectorate to see whether land use options for growth are properly and reasonably viable and most particularly deliverable within the Plan period. This is not made clear in this Plan at this stage and it should state that all growth options, whatever size, should be properly tested from a viability and deliverability tests before this emerging Local Plan reaches consideration by Regulation 18.
Q-S1: Whilst the focusing on green and blue corridors is one way of considering Spatial Growth, there is no reference whatsoever to the need to consider both reasonable expansion of existing settlements such as at Hatton Park as well as reasonable local Economic growth and the benefits of economic growth in those corridors. This is particularly helpful in identifying recovery areas and linking that back to economic growth. Economic growth, in conjunction with farm expansion, can provide very substantial Green infrastructure particularly in proper and reasonable balanced Masterplanning of development particularly for the future of Hatton Park and its extension. Comment on the options: Firstly this is a poorly worded question because what is required is a new policy that links Environmental protection, environmental enhancement and economic benefits flowing from development that would both assist protection and enhancement. Q-S2: There needs to be a clear policy context between major urban areas and rural settlements where the issues of density are both fundamentally different. Each site has to be judged on its own merits and the benefits that it could bring with economic growth balanced against environmental protection and enhancement. Issue S4: We would support the Table 2 list of settlements and locations which clearly have connectivity and accessibility. This should be separated from density which is a fundamentally different matter to deal with. Issue S5: We would comment that in our opinion it would be better to focus attention on existing settlements, the upgrading of those settlements as this would be sustainably more appropriate than building a new settlement. This is particularly the case for a reasonable expansion of Hatton Park. Infrastructure would be better focused on existing settlements to upgrade existing facilities such as utilities like broadband with the future wants of those settlements in terms of broad provision of community facilities. Q-S5.2: We would suggest that you refer to the paragraph above taking into account the economic and environmental benefits of properly and reasonably expanding existing settlements, particularly for places like Hatton Park, where there is a main line rail station at Warwick Parkway close-by and where there could be some appropriate sustainable local economic employment growth in addition linked to the farming activities of this area. Q-S10: There needs to be a much more positive approach to settlement growth in order to fulfil the best development strategy for South Warwickshire.
There should, in the emerging Local Plan, be a quite clear and positive settlement analysis. This analysis needs to be extremely detailed, settlement by settlement, not only recording the benefits but also the disbenefits of each settlement. The last settlement analysis under the Adopted Stratford Local Plan is now very considerably out of date and not fit for purpose. For instance, shopping habits have changed considerably as have community requirements, community sharing of facilities, etc.
No answer given
