Issue and Options 2023

Back to document

Search form responses

Results for Deeley Group Limited search

New search

Form ID: 78154

Respondent: Deeley Group Limited

Agent: Delta Planning

Q-V3.1: Do you agree that the Vision and Strategic Objectives are appropriate?

Yes

Q-V3.2: If no, please indicate why

-Yes we agree with the overall vision to meet housing and economic development needs for South Warwickshire to 2050, including where appropriate and agreed, unmet needs from neighbouring authorities. Providing land for homes and jobs in the right places is critical to addressing housing shortfalls and economic needs, and ensuring South Warwickshire is an attractive and dynamic place to live and work. -We also generally agree that the strategic objectives are appropriate.

Form ID: 78156

Respondent: Deeley Group Limited

Agent: Delta Planning

Option I3a: Establish a South Warwickshire CIL (or emerging new Infrastructure Levy) to support the delivery of the Plan

selected

Option I3b: Each District Council to produce its own Levy

selected

Form ID: 78157

Respondent: Deeley Group Limited

Agent: Delta Planning

Option S2a: Identify areas considered particularly suited to intensification development, and develop a design code for each character area. Have a policy supporting intensification within these identified areas where it complies with the relevant design code.

selected

Option S2b: Have a policy with 'in principle' support for intensification development, applicable across South Warwickshire; and develop design codes

selected

Option S2c: Do not have a policy which encourages intensification

selected

Form ID: 78158

Respondent: Deeley Group Limited

Agent: Delta Planning

Option S3.2a: Prioritise brownfield development only when it corresponds with the identified growth strategy, or if it can be proven that the development is in a sustainable location or would increase the sustainability of the area.

selected

Option S3.2b: Prioritise development on brownfield land, incorporating existing buildings into development proposals wherever possible, irrespective of its location

selected

Option S3.2c: None of these

selected

Form ID: 78159

Respondent: Deeley Group Limited

Agent: Delta Planning

Q-S4.1: Do you think that growth of some of our existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy?

Yes

Q-S4.2: Please add any comments you wish to make about the settlement analysis, indicating clearly which element of the assessment and which settlement(s) you are commenting on

No answer given

Form ID: 78161

Respondent: Deeley Group Limited

Agent: Delta Planning

Q-S5.2: Do you think new settlements should be part of the overall strategy?

Nothing chosen

Q-S5.3: In response to the climate change emergencies, we are looking at rail corridors as a preferred approach to identifying potential locations. Do you agree?

Yes

Q-S5.4: If not, what approach would you take?

Yes if a new settlement is proposed it is critical that it is rail served.

Form ID: 78164

Respondent: Deeley Group Limited

Agent: Delta Planning

Option 1: Rail Corridors

Nothing chosen

Option 2: Sustainable Travel

Nothing chosen

Option 3: Economy

Nothing chosen

Option 4: Sustainable Travel and Economy

Appropriate strategy

Option 5: Dispersed

Nothing chosen

Form ID: 78166

Respondent: Deeley Group Limited

Agent: Delta Planning

Q-S8.1: For settlements falling outside the chosen growth strategy, do you think a threshold approach is appropriate, to allow more small-scale developments to come forward?

Yes

Q-S8.2: For sites coming forward as part of this threshold approach, what do you think would be an appropriate size limit for individual sites?

A higher limit is appropriate

Form ID: 78168

Respondent: Deeley Group Limited

Agent: Delta Planning

Option S9a: Save all existing settlement boundaries where these are already defined within the Core Strategy, Local Plan, emerging SAP or an NDP.

selected

Option S9b: Within this Part 1 Plan, review which settlements have boundaries defined and which do not, as well as the extent of any such boundaries.

selected

Form ID: 78169

Respondent: Deeley Group Limited

Q-S10: Please add any comments you wish to make about the development distribution strategy for South Warwickshire

- Q-S2: We support option S2B. An ‘in principle’ policy support for intensification is appropriate subject to design guidance. This would support making best use of existing urban areas. - Q-S3.2: We support option S3.2a. An ‘in principle’ support for brownfield development where it corresponds with the growth strategy. This would support making best use of existing urban areas and previously developed land. - Q-S4.1: Yes growth of existing settlements should be the main option within the overall growth strategy. This ensures making best use of existing infrastructure and sustainable patterns of development. Please see full response to this at Q-S7.2. - Q-S5.2: We are not against the principle of new settlements but the history of these shows that they require significant new infrastructure and take a long time to be delivered. It is critical that if such is part of the strategy they must be proven to be viable, deliverable, accessible and sustainable, and only one part of the overall strategy. We would only support a new settlement(s) to be part of the preferred option if combined with the growth of existing settlements. Existing settlements are supported by existing infrastructure and are inherently more sustainable and can be delivered quicker than new settlements thus securing housing supply in the earlier stages of the Local Plan. - Q-S8.2: Although in principle a threshold approach could provide useful guidance for a smaller settlements growth, a standardized approach is difficult as settlement sizes vary enormously. A standard limit of 10 dwellings as suggested is certainly too small as whilst it may be appropriate in a very small settlement, it would be too low for many settlements. A limit of 10 units also results in no affordable housing being provided. If a standard threshold is considered necessary it should be expressed as a % of the houses in the existing settlement. - Q-S9: We support Option S9b. It is clearly essential that the Part 1 Plan should include a fresh review of all settlement boundaries. This issue of settlement boundaries raises the problem of pursuing a 2 stage Local Plan which we do not support. See our full response to Chapter 12: Plan Context.

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.