Preferred Options 2025
Search representations
Results for MPTL search
New searchNo
Preferred Options 2025
Do you broadly support the proposals in the Introduction? If you have any additional points to raise with regards to this chapter please include them here.
Representation ID: 98875
Received: 06/03/2025
Respondent: MPTL
Agent: Harris Lamb
We have concerns with:
1) The length of the plan period
2) Meeting Development Needs
3) Carrying for Existing Allocations
No
Preferred Options 2025
Do you broadly support the proposals in the Vision and Strategic Objectives: South Warwickshire 2050 chapter? If you have any additional points to raise with regards to this chapter please include them here.
Representation ID: 98921
Received: 06/03/2025
Respondent: MPTL
Agent: Harris Lamb
The plan period should be extended to 2055 and this should be reflected in the Vision.
The Strategic Objectives should reflect the guidance in the NPPF on economic development.
The Strategic objectives should prioritise the redevelopment of brownfield sites, not just the reuse and refurbishment of buildings.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
Strategic Growth Location SG02 Question
Representation ID: 98946
Received: 06/03/2025
Respondent: MPTL
Agent: Harris Lamb
The Stoneleigh Park Employment Group should be a priority location for an allocation.
Stoneleigh Park is an existing employment site. It is adversely effected by HS2. A new policy is required to guide its development.
The HS2 compound adjacent to the A46 is a large PDL site in the Green Belt that should be allocated for development alongside the surrounding land.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
Do you have any comments on a specific site proposal or the HELAA results?
Representation ID: 98950
Received: 06/03/2025
Respondent: MPTL
Agent: Harris Lamb
We have concerns with the HELAA assessment of sites ID99 - Kingswood Business Park and ID:100 - Stoneleigh Park
No
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 3- Small Scale Development, Settlement Boundaries and Infill Development?
Representation ID: 98955
Received: 06/03/2025
Respondent: MPTL
Agent: Harris Lamb
No, as well as identifying settlement boundaries for existing settlements, the SWLP should identify specific development boundaries for large scale free standing employment sites, such as Stoneleigh Park and the proposed Kingswood Business Park
No
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 4- Accommodating Growth Needs Arising from Outside South Warwickshire?
Representation ID: 98985
Received: 06/03/2025
Respondent: MPTL
Agent: Harris Lamb
No, Draft Policy Direction 4 refers to housing needs only. There is no reference to the fact that South Warwickshire may be required to provide employment land to support the growth of the Coventry and Warwickshire HMA or the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA
No
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 5- Infrastructure Requirements and Delivery?
Representation ID: 98996
Received: 06/03/2025
Respondent: MPTL
Agent: Harris Lamb
Whilst we support the objectives of Draft Policy Direction 5 in principle, it must be ensured that all contributions are CIL compliant.
Stoneleigh Park and the Kingswood Business Park are being promoted as large scale strategic employment sites through the plan making process. These sites will deliver significant new infrastructure that will not only facilitate the development of the proposed employment land, but also have wider benefits. The proposed link road through Stoneleigh Park and Kingswood Business Park would act as a bypass for Stoneleigh Village which would be of significant benefit of the proposed scheme.
No
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 7- Green Belt?
Representation ID: 99001
Received: 06/03/2025
Respondent: MPTL
Agent: Harris Lamb
No, as drafted the policy does not properly reflect the most recent version of the Framework’s Green Belt guidance. The Framework introduces the concept of “Grey Belt” land. It actively encourages the development of Grey Belt land ahead of Green Belt land. This is not, however, reflected in the Draft Policy Direction 7. The Stage 2 Green Belt review referred to in the policy will also need to consider which sites constitute “Grey Belt” in order to inform the site selection process.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction-8- Density?
Representation ID: 99005
Received: 06/03/2025
Respondent: MPTL
Agent: Harris Lamb
We fully support the SWLP making full use of sustainable brownfield land before development is considered in other locations. Stoneleigh Park (HELAA ID100) is a large previously developed site in the Green Belt. The proposed Kingswood Business Park (HELAA reference ID99) contains significant areas of built and permitted development. A large proportion of this site is currently being used as a HS2 compound that’s use is expected to cease in 2030.
No
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction- 12-Locations for Employment Growth?
Representation ID: 99039
Received: 06/03/2025
Respondent: MPTL
Agent: Harris Lamb
Additional employment land is required to take account of the fact that the plan period runs to 2050 (we proposed is should be 2055), whereas the WMSESS only assesses needs up to 2045.
Stoneleigh Park Employment Group should be a Strategic Employment site.
