Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Search representations

Results for Sworders search

New search New search

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Revised Development Strategy

Representation ID: 60920

Received: 16/01/2014

Respondent: Sworders

Representation Summary:

The SHMA has already been published and found that the housing need in all of the authority areas, including Warwick District, is likely to be higher than that currently planned for, i.e. 720 dwellings per annum, as opposed to the planned for 683 dwellings per annum. This is a significant increase and could have considerable bearing on the number and/or density of sites required. We appreciate that this is only part of the evidence base feeding and is yet to be tested and consulted upon, however, it gives a strong indication of how the housing requirement may to evolve.

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Promoting Sustainable Development

Representation ID: 60921

Received: 16/01/2014

Respondent: Sworders

Representation Summary:

Options in Green Belt villages must be considered in order to meet the full needs of a growing population.

The appropriate mechanism for altering Green Belt boundaries is via the preparation of a Local Plan. The growing population and increased need as demonstrated by the joint SHMA is likely to put pressure on Green Belt boundaries in the future. It is therefore important that the Council plan for sufficient land to be released from the Green Belt now, in order to avoid pressure and defend boundary amendments in the future.

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Duty to Co-operate

Representation ID: 60922

Received: 16/01/2014

Respondent: Sworders

Representation Summary:

Directing development to an alternative location will not necessarily meet the need of Warwick. Furthermore, it is more common that unmet needs form large urban areas which are physically constrained to be redistributed into adjacent rural authorities, than the reverse. In this instance, the pressure is for unmet need which cannot physically be provided within the limits to Coventry is redistributed to the adjoining authorities, as was originally proposed in the West Midlands RSS Revision Phase 2.

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Scale and Impact

Representation ID: 60923

Received: 16/01/2014

Respondent: Sworders

Representation Summary:

We appreciate that the detailed site assessment work has resulted in a decrease in the total number of village housing due to environmental and access restrictions, against the backdrop of a likely increase in the district housing requirement as evidenced by the recently published Coventry & Warwickshire joint Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), the council should approach this reduction with caution.

Sites must be deliverable therefore access restrictions are important considerations and can be an absolute bar to development, environmental constraints are more objective and must be balanced against the requirement to meet the full needs of a growing population.

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Summary of Findings

Representation ID: 60924

Received: 16/01/2014

Respondent: Sworders

Representation Summary:

Baginton was identified as a Primary Service Village with services and facilities suitable to accommodate 70-90 dwellings under the Draft Settlement Hierarchy Report in May 2013 this has been reduced to only 35 dwellings. The density proposed on the preferred site is also below the full capacity as a result of the need for a high level of environmental screening. Whilst this may be necessary to make development of the site acceptable, it should be considered in light of the likely increase in the District housing requirement as demonstrated by the emerging evidence base.

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Green Belt Villages and Insetting

Representation ID: 60925

Received: 16/01/2014

Respondent: Sworders

Representation Summary:

We support the intention to inset from the Green Belt those villages identified as appropriate for growth as it will significantly improve the deliverability of allocated sites.

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

1) Land north of Rosewood Farm

Representation ID: 60926

Received: 16/01/2014

Respondent: Sworders

Representation Summary:

We support the preferred option for the development of 35 dwellings subject to correction to "Land north of Rosswood Farm",

Of all of the potential development sites in Baginton, this site has been identified to have the least negative impact with good connectivity with the settlement with suitable access and provides opportunities to enhance the visual appearance of this part of the village, clearly defining an entrance to the village from the south. The site would form a logical boundary to this end of the village with development extending no further south than the pub and fronting the highway.

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Indicative Settlement Boundary

Representation ID: 60927

Received: 16/01/2014

Respondent: Sworders

Representation Summary:

We support the intention to inset from the Green Belt those villages identified as appropriate for growth as it will significantly improve the deliverability of allocated sites.

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Baginton

Representation ID: 60928

Received: 16/01/2014

Respondent: Sworders

Representation Summary:

We agree that Baginton is an appropriately sustainable settlement to accommodate some of the district's housing needs. Baginton has been justifiably identified as a Key Growth Village as it has services and facilities suitable to accommodate 70-90 dwellings. The preferred site is proposed for only 35 dwellings.

Support

Village Housing Options and Settlement Boundaries

Sites Review

Representation ID: 60930

Received: 16/01/2014

Respondent: Sworders

Representation Summary:

We are supportive of the decision to exclude the alternative sites and agree with the findings of the site assessment matrix contained at appendix 6 in relation to these discounted sites.

Development of Site 2 would be inappropriate due to contamination and potential environmental buffer designation. Site 3 is unsuitable due to quarry / geological importance, potential contamination and landscape impact. Site 4 is justifiably discounted due to flood risk and current viable commercial use. Discounted option 5 has high landscape value as well as potential impact on impact on the conservation area and scheduled ancient monument.

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