Issue and Options 2023
Search form responses
Results for A C Lloyd Homes search
New searchQ-B8.1 - Policies should simply cross reference with national policy. There is no need for additional guidance.
- Issue B5: Environmental Net Gain - We support option B5c. Any requirements should be set at the national level unless there are very specific reasons and a sound reasoning for needing a different requirement to meet local circumstances. Issue B6: Wildbelt designations - QB6 - We don’t see the need further level of designation beyond the current suite of local, regional and national environmental designations. - Issue B7: Minerals - QB7 - Policies from the Minerals Plan should not be replicated. - Issue B8: Agricultural Land - Q-B8.1 - Policies should simply cross reference with national policy. There is no need for additional guidance. - Issue B9: Protecting Biodiversity and Geodiversity assets - Q-B9. National policies, guidance and legislation already exists to protect such areas and should not be duplicated as appropriate.
- As per our response to the Scoping Consultation we disagree with the approach of a two-part SWLP, starting with a high-level, strategic part 1 Local Plan. While such an approach may be deemed desirable in terms of speeding up the adoption process of a part 1 Plan, such an approach will result in an absence of important policies that are needed to deliver the vision, objectives and priorities in the area whether they are in Plan 1 or not. A single Plan with a comprehensive set of policies that were all prepared at the same time, will in our opinion lead to a more robust, deliverable and successful plan. - By splitting the Allocations out from the Development Strategy, it will most likely lead to disengagement amongst most people and would not provide any clarity to communities and landowners. - Furthermore, splitting the Allocations from the Strategy will also result in more speculative, unplanned development coming forward given that both Stratford District Council’s Core Strategy and Warwick District Council’s Local Plan are both over 5 years old.
- As per our response to the Scoping Consultation we disagree with the approach of a two-part SWLP, starting with a high-level, strategic part 1 Local Plan. While such an approach may be deemed desirable in terms of speeding up the adoption process of a part 1 Plan, such an approach will result in an absence of important policies that are needed to deliver the vision, objectives and priorities in the area whether they are in Plan 1 or not. A single Plan with a comprehensive set of policies that were all prepared at the same time, will in our opinion lead to a more robust, deliverable and successful plan. - By splitting the Allocations out from the Development Strategy, it will most likely lead to disengagement amongst most people and would not provide any clarity to communities and landowners. - Furthermore, splitting the Allocations from the Strategy will also result in more speculative, unplanned development coming forward given that both Stratford District Council’s Core Strategy and Warwick District Council’s Local Plan are both over 5 years old.
Wellesbourne It is considered that the whole process of connectivity including both the accessibility mapping and local facilities within the Settlement Analysis report is over simplified and does not look holistically at a site or its location. The assessments need to be applied carefully and not be too prescriptive as some sites may have multiple facilities just beyond the 800 metres (20-minute walking time) and could still be sustainable locations for new housing. We specifically object to the Connectivity Analysis for Area 11 in Wellesbourne which incorrectly categorises Call for Sites Reference 162 (Land at Chadley House, Loxley Road) as Grade C. Within the Settlement Analysis Report Grade C is described as having: “barriers may be overcome, but not easily. Connects to: - one brown or red route - potential for connecting existing cul-de-sacs or loops into new red route - active links (e.g. via green / blue infrastructure or other active links) are possible but not easy” Site 162 (Land at Chadley House, Loxley Road) has immediate access to a primary street which has a footway available opposite to access employment opportunities in a large existing employment area, bus stops on Dovehouse Drive, supermarket, community centre, playing fields and convenience store. Please refer to the Vision Document submitted as part of the call for sites submission which includes an accessibility map. Based on the above, it is considered that the connectivity analysis should be amended from Grade C to Grade B. We also question why Areas 5 and 6 in Wellesbourne have been categorised as Grade B as whilst the connectivity analysis shows these sites are partially adjacent to both a primary street or thoroughfare, neither of the sites has an existing access in place, unlike for example Call for Sites Reference 162. Furthermore, the connectivity analysis comments that the “Village already feels unbalanced to the south, and development here would exacerbate that”. We object to this comment as firstly, it is not relevant to the connectivity assessment. Secondly, it is more conclusive and restrictive compared to other settlements and this appears to pre-empt a balanced assessment of the options. The assessment of other settlements in the Settlement Analysis don’t have this level of assessment at this stage and consistency in the assessments approach is important.
Radford Semele It is considered that the whole process of connectivity including both the accessibility mapping and local facilities within the Settlement Analysis report is over simplified and does not look holistically at a site or its location. The assessments need to be applied carefully and not be too prescriptive as some sites may have multiple facilities just beyond the 800 metres (20-minute walking time) and could still be sustainable locations for new housing. We specifically object to the Connectivity Analysis for Area 9 in Radford Semele which incorrectly categorises Call for Sites Reference 142 (Land south of The Cricketers) as Grade D. Within the Settlement Analysis Report Grade D is described as having: “significant barriers which would be difficult to overcome and connects to: - green route, loops or cul-de-sacs only, with limited or no potential to connect these into new red route - limited or no potential active links e.g., via green / blue infrastructure or other active links”. The assessment comments for Area 9 state that the site “would need to link through current development north of the area, downgraded for this reason”. We strongly disagree with these findings of the connectivity analysis. The Connectivity Analysis map incorrectly identifies Area 9 as being accessed via a footpath. Area 9 (Site 142) is however proposed to form a further phase of the recently completed residential development at The Cricketers and so it has direct access into a secondary street. Access into Area 9 (Site 142) has been specifically allowed for in the design of The Cricketers scheme and can accommodate the additional traffic generated by further housing. In regard to active links, Area 9 also has direct access to an active link as a public right of way runs along the eastern and western boundaries of the site which are proposed to be maintained as part of any housing development. The site is also in very close proximity to the existing village recreation ground; however, we note that this has incorrectly not been identified as part of the village’s existing green infrastructure. There is also potential for further active links as an additional Call for Sites has been submitted by A.C. Lloyd Homes which comprises of land west of Radford Semele. This area is being promoted for open space/biodiversity/ green infrastructure uses in connection with, and accessed via, land south of The Cricketers. Based on the above, the analysis should be amended from Grade D to Grade B as any barriers are negligible or easily overcome; the site connects to a red route (thoroughfare); and there is both strong existing and potential active links. In regard to the Accessibility Table for Radford Semele within the Settlement Analysis, it is not clear why Areas 6, 7 and 8 have a score of 1 for healthcare as the village does not appear to have any health service within 800 metres of these sites.
Blackdown It is considered that the whole process of connectivity including both the accessibility mapping and local facilities within the Settlement Analysis report is over simplified and does not look holistically at a site or its location. The assessments need to be applied carefully and not be too prescriptive as some sites may have multiple facilities just beyond the 800 metres (20-minute walking time) and could still be sustainable locations for new housing. We specifically object to the Connectivity Analysis for Areas 9, 10 and 12 in Cubbington and North Leamington which incorrectly categorise Call for Sites References 174, 210 and 211 as Grade C. Within the Settlement Analysis Report Grade C is described as having: “barriers may be overcome, but not easily. Connects to: - one brown or red route - potential for connecting existing cul-de-sacs or loops into new red route - active links (e.g. via green / blue infrastructure or other active links) are possible but not easy The assessment comments for Areas 9 and 10 state that there is an existing footpath to the east and west. It is noted that a public right of way (132/W206/1) runs through Call for Sites Ref 174 which forms an active link from Westhill Road to Leicester Lane. Based on the above, the analysis should be amended from Grade C to Grade B as any barriers are negligible or easily overcome; the site connects to a brown route (primary street); and there is a strong existing active link within both Areas 9 and D and in close proximity to Area 12.
Southam It is considered that the whole process of connectivity including both the accessibility mapping and local facilities within the Settlement Analysis report is over simplified and does not look holistically at a site or its location. The assessments need to be applied carefully and not be too prescriptive as some sites may have multiple facilities just beyond the 800 metres (20-minute walking time) and could still be sustainable locations for new housing. We specifically object to the Connectivity Analysis for Area 7 in Southam which incorrectly categorises Call for Sites Reference 64 (Land North of Leamington Road) as Grade C. Within the Settlement Analysis Report Grade C is described as: “barriers may be overcome, but not easily. Connects to: - one brown or red route - potential for connecting existing cul-de-sacs or loops into new red route - active links (e.g. via green / blue infrastructure or other active links) are possible but not easy Land north of Leamington Road has immediate access to a primary street which has a footway to access employment opportunities at Holywell Business Park, a supermarket, bus stops on Leamington Road, and a GP surgery. Based on the above, the analysis should be amended from Grade C to Grade B as any barriers are negligible or easily overcome; the site connects to a brown route (primary street); and there is a strong existing active link to Southam town centre.
