Issue and Options 2023

Yes

No answer given

Don't know

No answer given

It is hard to understand how, in a very low unemployment area, it is not recognised that the concept of attracting in NEW business, investment and jobs MUST mean bringing in more people, who will require more homes, in addition to any that might already be needed for current residents, who will have more cars and/or require more infrastructure, which will NOT BE MET and the situation will get worse, rather than better.

The document states, dismissively, that there is a “view that in the past infrastructure provision has not matched the level of growth and/or not been delivered at the right time”. HOW TRUE THAT IS, particularly for WDC where we already have the chaos of Europa Way – once a magnificent gateway to Leamington from the south, being sequentially destroyed to be replaced by a running-sore dual carriageway race-track cum parking lot.

Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton as a community are universally frightened by the prospect of Warwick and Leamington sprawling over the countryside and now due to occupy all the space beyond the old Banbury Road. We would suggest that there should be a RED LINE established preventing new development south of the M40 at the very least and preferably also excluding the triangle of land (Park Fm, Spinney Fm and Red House Fm) bounded by the old Banbury Road A4100 and A425 and Barford Road Warwick – effectively creating a “zone of restraint” south of the Leamington/Warwick built up area. In particular this would protect Sherbourne from being totally overwhelmed by the threatened industrial development adjacent to J15 of the M40.

BROWNFIELD SITES – The JPC believes that brownfield sites should be subject to much more scrutiny and should be fully exploited, even if they are notionally less sustainable or economic, rather than taking more greenfield sites for ease of development and cost savings. This principle should particularly apply to the numbers we may be expected to take from Coventry, Birmingham and the Black Country where it is known that extensive tracts of brownfield sites are not being utilised.

Yes

The JPC is disappointed that the current Issues and Options consultation has been so short and so poorly publicised – a straw poll found that most residents were almost totally unaware of it and had certainly not engaged. The quotes from the community, whilst a welcome inclusion in the document, also suggest that there was very limited public engagement. The wisest comment included was one which suggested that the plan “should not be (so) developer led” – HOW TRUE – previous plans have been “Developers’ Charters” and given the directions and magnitudes of the SWLP so far we are looking at more of the same. It does not have to be like this! A new “local plan” should be an exciting opportunity to shape our locality for years to come, but even the official publicity is lacklustre and understated with formats that are hard to follow, with numerous links to other sites or documents and with no clear path through it is easy to get distracted or lost completely. We are disappointed that there have not been more public engagement events and particularly that there has been minimal engagement with the PC/TC sector, beyond the rather minimal chair briefings, with other councillors specifically excluded. The Issues & Options document smacks very much of a pre-determined format, populated by a development professional with limited local knowledge, all based on a presumption of ever increasing growth as the only way forward.

Concerning sites offered so far Barford has concerns. The site off Westham Lane, west of Barford Bypass, should be rejected on multiple grounds including difficulty of access off Barford Bypass, intrusion in the landscape, loss of BMV land and separation from local services. Furthermore, we would suggest another Red Line along Barford Bypass prohibiting significant developments west of that route, with perhaps revisiting the older concept of the “Avon Valley Area of Restraint”. Land around Barford House has been offered for residential development and is currently against all local policies, a situation which should persist, unless there is an offering specifically to comply with Policy B3 of Barford NDP, which specifically seeks provision for housing for the aged and infirm.

No

HOUSING NEEDS – There has always been controversy about the magnitude of the numbers for housing needs and we have always known that they are (politically?) manipulated to fund affordable housing and overspill from the conurbations. The numbers deployed in the last Local Plan were repeatedly and credibly challenged, by Ray Bullen of BTPC and others, to little or no avail, and have since been shown to have been excessive. The pattern now looks likely to repeat itself… The JPC commends proper consideration of the CPRE review of the numbers along with a full review of the obligations to accommodate so many from the nearby conurbations.

Sherbourne response to SWLP – March 2023 The residents of, and Parish Councilors for, Sherbourne have some grave concerns over the likely over-development of Sherbourne and the complete change to its current rural small village nature, should many of the sites listed in the draft local plan go ahead. The SWLP already identifies Sherbourne as a ‘Limited Infill’ village and that is a realistic description of the village. It has no sustainable infrastructure that will be able to support any significant building whether for housing or commercial properties. Sherbourne does not have the following: • Shop • Pub • School • Employment opportunities • Footpaths on most of the roads – with the exception of one side only of Church Road and one side of Fulbrook Lane. The nearest local services are one mile away in Barford, all of which necessitate crossing the very busy A429, which is planned to become a lot busier, or in Warwick 3-4 miles away which necessitates crossing the A429 and the M40 Junction. It does have a bus service but this is infrequent and not suitable for regular commuting to either Stratford or Warwick/Leamington for work. Therefore any additional house building in Sherbourne will have to have all their transport needs met by private cars, adding further to the traffic on surrounding roads and contravening SDC and WDC planning policies. The interactive map has large swathes of land around Sherbourne marked as having the potential for industrial / commercial development primarily around the A46 / M40 Junction – Both sides of the A46 north of the junction – The north side of the M40 between J15 and J14 – The south side of the m40 between the River Avon and the junction If all this goes ahead this will turn the outskirts of Warwick into an area akin to the M40 approaches to Bicester with all available land covered in large industrial or logistics buildings. While a desk-placed planner will look at the maps, see some logic to this and think the road network is ideal for this, it will change the whole nature of the southern approaches to Warwick. This will spill over and surround Sherbourne completely destroying its rural character as a small estate based village. As the definition of ‘limited infill’ describes, Sherbourne has the potential for some infill, a couple of houses at most, on sites in and around the village, but its total lack of infrastructure means it cannot handle anything more. The following are our responses to the Sherbourne sites listed in the call for sites are shown in the table below. For information the people identified as ‘Sherbourne Owner Occupiers’ is the local residents association concerned about protecting the village and they are not proposing the sites identified should be developed. Comments have been added below each site where appropriate. 181 Land South of M40 Junction 15, Longbridge Warwick Field to the east of Watery Lane Turley Employment / Industrial / Commercial 181 – this is one of the most worrying of the potential sites. The suggestion is that this be turned over to distribution warehouses. From a desk based planning approach this may seem logical, it is just off the M40 and adjacent to the A429 which is already a major route to the Distribution Centre in Wellesbourne, so the argument would be that there wouldn’t be much extra traffic. Site 181 covers two parcels of land one of the west side of A429 and one on the east side. Firstly this parcel of land is in the flood zone which should make it unsuitable for any such development. Secondly, although it is on the A429, this is a relatively short stretch of road and it would be very difficult to create a road junction large enough to handle HGVs turning in and out of a distribution site. Rush hour traffic already causes tailbacks from the roundabout down the A429 to Fulbrook Lane, and sometime beyond, which is all well past where a distribution depot entry would be needed. There are already traffic problems on that part of the A429 with HGVs who park overnight in the laybys or on the access road to the Highways Depot in the corner of the M40 junction. Thirdly and most importantly any such warehouses would tower over all the houses along Watery Lane, the cottages at the end of the Stratford Road and all the houses in Moat Green. This would change completely the nature of this side of the village visually, plus would also subject the whole area to a vast increase in noise from HGVs which would inevitably need to work 24 hours a day to make any sort of distribution centre a viable proposition. Interestingly one possible use for this site does not seem to have been considered. Developers have already submitted planning applications for solar farms at two locations on the green belt farmland to the north of the A46 adjacent to the Sherbourne roundabout. One of these has been rejected for green belt and associated reasons. The second application is going through the system at time of writing (March 2023) and assuming the refusal of the first application sets a precedent, this is likely to be refused. This site 181 – could usefully be used as a solar farm. It has a large south facing open aspect, the solar panels are normally installed on piles taking them above ground level and could be mounted high enough to not be at risk of flooding. Significant access would only be required during the construction phase and following that, there would be minimal access and traffic requirements and no increase in A429 volumes. The size and nature of the solar panels should all be low enough to be screened from the Sherbourne residents by the current hedge and tree planting along Watery Lane – although this could benefit from some improvements. 196 Land east of Vicarage Lane Sherbourne Pegasus Group Housing / residential 196 - This is known as the Black Barn Paddock in the village, and currently is used for grazing animals – normally horses. It contains a large metal barn which in the past has been used for stabling /livery. Despite the size of this site, it is not suitable for the development of a large number of houses due to the lack of village infra-structure mentioned. At best if it were to be developed then it could support a couple of large properties along Vicarage Lane and a couple along Watery Lane. All residents would still be reliant on Barford, Warwick etc for infra structure and while there are no employment opportunities in the village this should not generate significant amounts of traffic in the lanes. 201 Land between Vicarage Lane and Watery Lane, Sherbourne Sherbourne, CV35 8AL Godfrey Payton Housing / residential 201 - this paddock is between Watery Lane and Vicarage Lane with Fulbrook Lane along its southern boundary and is also used for grazing, currently for goats (as a petting zoo type of attraction) with a parcel of the paddock sectioned off for dog care / walking. Even this minor use is causing problems in the village with site visitors parking either on the grass verges, or part on the verge, part on the lane, narrowing the already limited access. For all the reason listed above this site is not suitable for a significant housing development. 364 Land south of M40 Jctn 15 Nr Sherbourne, Warwick Stoford Developments Ltd Employment / Industrial / Commercial 364 - is similar in nature, and adjacent to Site 181 and our objections are similar Again this area is in the flood zone making it unsuitable. While any such development would not be as close to the Sherbourne housing as Site 181, and therefore not be as over-bearing, this would change the nature of the area from the M40 down towards Barford. 533 (a) Black Barn Paddock (Sherbourne Farm) Sherbourne Owner Occupiers Open Space / Biodiversity / Green Infrastructure 533 (a) see comments above for 196 533 (b) Corner Paddock/Ryefield Corner of Vicarage Lane and Fulbrook Lane Sherbourne Owner Occupiers Open Space / Biodiversity / Green Infrastructure 533 (b) see comments above for 201 533 (c) The setting of Sherbourne Priors Sherbourne Owner Occupiers Open Space / Biodiversity / Green Infrastructure 533 (c) has recently been the subject of a planning application W/22/1508 for two houses to be built within a portion of the grounds of Sherbourne Priors (Grade II Listed Building) which has now changed use from a Language School back to residential. A portion of the land was retained by the last owners who planned to build on it. While the addition of two houses in the village and the limited traffic they would generate would not have had an overly adverse effect on the village, the application was refused by WDC on the following main grounds: The siting and design of the proposal are considered harmful to the character and appearance of the area, the Conservation Area and the setting of the Grade II listed building. 533 (d) Land at the north end of Church Road Sherbourne Owner Occupiers Open Space / Biodiversity / Green Infrastructure 533 (d) is a small parcel of land on the corner of Church Road and Fulbrook Lane. This is currently used for grazing sheep and while it is potentially large enough to build one house, portion of it does flood regularly as Sherbourne Brook flows along its western edge. 533 (e) Coplow Hill and surrounding farmland Sherbourne Owner Occupiers Open Space / Biodiversity / Green Infrastructure 533 (e) is a large tract of land with Fulbrook Lane to the south and the A46 to the north. This is a steep sided hill, some of which is wooded (Coplow Wood) and most of which is used for dairy farming on a long lease. This land should be retained for agricultural and open space purposes. A number of ‘glamping pods’ have been installed in Coplow Wood in the past few years and these have had minimal impact on the area and residents, and in fact are invisible from Fulbrook Lane below the woods. It has been intimated that the landowner may wish to install a few more pods and as long as the number is not excessive and then are no ancillary building proposed, then the site could sustain this level of development. 533 (f) Watery Lane and A429 Sherbourne Owner Occupiers 533 (f) see Site 181 533 (g) Fields adjacent to A46 Sherbourne Owner Occupiers Open Space / Biodiversity / Green Infrastructure 533 (g) relates to the fields on the north of the A46 adjacent to the m40, the Sherbourne roundabout and heading up the hill towards Stratford. This land has been the subject of two planning applications for solar farms: W/22/0548 Which has been refused by WDC W/22/0997 now re-submitted as W/23/0150 mentioned above which is currently going through the Planning Application process. Both these sites raise an interesting conundrum. Firstly they are in green belt and good agricultural land so in principle should not be used for development and should continue to be farmed. However, over time the rules around green belt have been known to change and we do not know how/if they will change in the future. If some of the other proposals go ahead much of the land around the M40 J15 and A46 could well end up as industrial/ commercial / distribution used. So while the local preference is that the land should remain in agricultural use, having solar farms on the land for an initial 40 year lease period, would effectively neutralise it and save it from commercial development for at least the next 40 years.