Issue and Options 2023
Search form responses
Results for The Burman Family search
New searchWhilst we accept generally the strategic objective there is no strategic objective that focuses on the existing train lines in the two Districts and most particularly on the existing stations on those train lines such as the station at Claverdon. This station puts Claverdon at the very heart of Sustainability because it is only one stop on the rail line to get to Warwick Parkway station and then onto the main London-Birmingham line. There is in fact no specific “Sustainability objective” and certainly no objective focused on the benefits of rail travel which is a clear error in this Plan at this stage.
It seems to us that the Plan lacks a “moderate positive impact” key likely impact as you only have two positives and effectively three negative impacts so we believe that the chart is deficient and should be amended.
We would comment that focusing new infrastructure on existing transport routes such as rail and stations would be the best use of scarce resources, particularly where new infrastructure could upgrade those existing stations and as a result improve the rail timetables particularly where there are opportunities to move rail travellers onto main line routes speedily and easily, such as at Claverdon. In addition the positive linking of new employment with housing in appropriate locations has a high level of sustainability and that should be the focus for improved infrastructure and delivery Q-I2: In the list of options there should be a much stronger Economic focus on the sustainable benefits of providing new employment with new housing in appropriate locations and also the sustainable connectivity with providing that growth at Key transport hubs such as stations. There is therefore in this instance an all round Economic benefit in focusing economic infrastructure provision for the benefit of both the District and South Warwickshire. Q-I5: This really is one of the most important parts of this emerging Local Plan and really seems to have been dismissed in the two paragraphs which discuss it. All Local Plans are critically assesed by the Planning Inspectorate to see whether land use options for growth are properly and reasonably viable and most particularly deliverable within the Plan period. This is not made clear in this Plan at this stage and it should state that all growth options, whatever size, should be properly tested from a viability and deliverability tests before this emerging Local Plan reaches consideration by Regulation 18.
There should in the emerging Local Plan be a quite clear and positive settlement analysis. This analysis needs to be extremely detailed, settlement by settlement, not only recording the benefits but also the disbenefits of each settlement. The last settlement analysis under the Adopted Stratford Local Plan is now very considerably out of date and not fit for purpose. For instance, shopping habits have changed considerably as have community requirements, community sharing of facilities, etc.
No answer given
Q-S1: Whilst the focusing on green and blue corridors is one way of considering Spatial Growth, there is no reference whatsoever to the need to consider Economic growth and the benefits of economic growth in those corridors. This is particularly helpful in identifying recovery areas and linking that back to economic growth. Economic growth can provide very substantial Green infrastructure particularly in proper and reasonable balanced Masterplanning of development. Comment on the options: Firstly this is a badly worded question because what is required is a new policy that links Environmental protection, environmental enhancement and economic benefits flowing from development that would both assist protection and enhancement. Q-S2: There needs to be a clear policy context between major urban areas and rural settlements where the issues of density are both fundamentally different. Each site has to be judged on its own merits and the benefits that it could bring with economic growth balanced against environmental protection and enhancement. Issue S4: We would support the Table 2 list of settlements and locations which clearly have connectivity and accessibility. This should be separated from density which is a fundamentally different matter to deal with. Issue S5: We would comment that in our opinion it would be better to focus attention on existing settlements, the upgrading of those settlements as this would be sustainably more appropriate than building a new settlement. Infrastructure would be better focused on existing settlements to upgrade existing facilities such as utilities like broadband with the future wants of those settlements in terms of broad provision of community facilities. Q-S5.2: We would suggest that you refer to the paragraph above taking into account the economic and environmental benefits of properly and reasonably expanding existing settlements where there is a rail station linking back to the main rail corridors and where there could be some appropriate sustainable economic employment growth in addition. Issue S10: There needs to be a much more positive approach to settlement growth in order to fulfil the best development strategy for South Warwickshire.
This emerging Local Plan needs a fundamentally new approach to the provision of employment land requirements, particularly in terms of the Plan period to 2050. Covid brought a substantial increase in the number of people working from home and particularly those who use broadband and the internet and can work from their own homes. The South Warwickshire Local Plan should have properly commissioned a new employment and economic study from independent consultants which should focus on providing focused growth for those employment activities related back to growth in the national economy. Without this independent Study we believe that the approach taken is imbalanced and particularly at a critical time generally after Covid. In addition this study should also focus on the opportunities to provide employment in a sustainable form along rail corridors and at key settlements near to train stations for some important kind of employment use. Not everyone wants to work from home, some need small start-up accommodation and the focus of some B1 office / business uses near to rail stations could be extremely helpful to the economy as a whole. Generally economic growth comes from small busineses expanding.
Q-E2: Given our reply under Q E1.1 above, the ability now to provide low or zero carbon employment growth together with environmental recycling should be the aim for new employment locations and particularly in sustainable settlements and not just in the major towns for South Warwickshire. Q-E4.1: Bearing in mind our replies on the various issues above relating to the economy, sustainability, sustainable travel and provision of new employment, provision of some employment land to assist rural diversification of the economy is important. Q-E5: This question is badly worded in that there are actually no options listed. However, sites have to be sufficiently large to provide the range of “grow-on” accommodation that is suggested is required. This is really more applicable to the provision of new employment in or adjoining existing towns. For instance there really does need to be provision for “new grow-on accommodation” at towns in South Warwickshire, like Alcester, or alternatively on land adjoining small employment areas in rural settlements such as at Claverdon. Q-E6: This question is again badly worded because there are no specific options but where in a sustainable rural location new business opportunities provide themselves, particularly in conjunction with farming and agricultural production then support should be given through this emerging Local Plan for such opportunities as farm shops, farm cafes, farm-related tourism ie visitations by the general public to farming operations of interest. Q-E8: There are small existing rural employment sites that really need further consideration and expansion where an appropriate opportunity is available.
We have looked at the 5YHLSC as at 31st March to March 2027 and it is our belief that the annual housing provision figure should be between 800 and 850 dwellings per annum. This takes into account the South Warwickshire Plan proposals for a much wider housing supply in form and context for the rural areas where there is very significant population and the need to try to retain growth in settlements and generally the residents staying within their general location. Both Districts have significant requirements for affordable housing and particularly in terms of the housing waiting list for each authority and the annualised figure above of 800 to 850 dwellings per annum allows for significant reductions in housing waiting lists as well as for a substantial increase in the requirement for affordable housing particularly in rural areas. This generally supports the trend-based projections included in Table 9.
