No

Ni roddwyd ateb

No

Ni roddwyd ateb

No

Ni roddwyd ateb

No

DLPDS consider that the proposed Vision is appropriate in general terms. However, the proposed Vision refers to meeting unmet need from neighbouring authorities, whereas it would be more appropriate to reference meeting unmet needs from the wider Housing Market Areas. Whilst Birmingham and the Black Country authorities are not neighbouring authorities of South Warwickshire, they are part of the same Housing Market Area, and should not be excluded.

No

It should be reworded to state that local needs must be met first BEFORE meeting needs of neighbouring authorites

Yes

All these objectives are related and not enough attention has been paid to this

Yes

Agreed as appropriate. No further comment.

No

All these [affordable housing] needs and the consequences of them, such as funding issues, should be reflected and prioritised in the Strategic Objectives Given the climate and biodiversity emergencies and this huge shortfall in affordable housing, they should be more strongly embodied in strategic objectives. The sustainable development section in particular should be redrafted to specify as priorities for investment and any growth a. retrofitting high emission houses and other buildings (numbers/proportions to be specified) b. eliminating the shortfall, in affordable and especially socially rented housing within, say ten years. c. intensified land use for housing to protect biodiversity, and encourage public and active travel.

No

A key focus should be on improving the quality of life for those who live & work in South Warwickshire.

No

The visions are acceptable but the proposals do not match them. The spatial growth workshops explored growth options where development in the greenbelt was NOT permitted and yet these are not shown as options. The reasons for this are based on a seriously flawed premise and run contrary to national policy on greenbelt and the planning inspectors report on this area of 2017.

No

Rosconn Strategic Land consider that the proposed Vision is appropriate in general terms. However, the proposed Vision makes reference to meeting unmet need from neighbouring authorities, and Rosconn Strategic Land consider it would be more appropriate to reference meeting unmet need from the wider Housing Market Areas. Whilst Birmingham and the Black Country authorities are not neighbouring authorities of South Warwickshire, they do form part of the same Housing Market Area and therefore should not be excluded. South Warwickshire falls within both the Coventry and Warwickshire Housing Market Area and the Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area it is therefore imperative that the SWLP adequately considers accommodating unmet housing needs which are arising from outside of South Warwickshire.

No

Rosconn Strategic Land consider that the proposed Vision is appropriate in general terms. However, the proposed Vision makes reference to meeting unmet need from neighbouring authorities, and Rosconn Strategic Land consider it would be more appropriate to reference meeting unmet need from the wider Housing Market Areas. Whilst Birmingham and the Black Country authorities are not neighbouring authorities of South Warwickshire, they do form part of the same Housing Market Area and therefore should not be excluded. South Warwickshire falls within both the Coventry and Warwickshire Housing Market Area and the Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area it is therefore imperative that the SWLP adequately considers accommodating unmet housing needs which are arising from outside of South Warwickshire.

No

The Vision is not truly a 'vision'. It is vague, could be anywhere and does not draw out the specific characteristics of South Warwickshire. The strategic objectives are similarly vague with no real focus on the key strategic issues in South Warwickshire.

Yes

They are all admirable statements, but our community has concerns having had swathes of development,south and west of Whitnash but with no improved transport links and neighbouring roads repeatedly jammed with traffic at rush hours. We need suitable transport links for all vehicles before any more mass developments occur

No

I think that greenbelt land development should be specifically avoided and given higher priority.

Yes

Ni roddwyd ateb

Yes

Ni roddwyd ateb

Yes

Ni roddwyd ateb

Yes

Ni roddwyd ateb

Yes

Ni roddwyd ateb

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

The process is flawed because all five options presume Green Belt development without acknowledging the significant constraints involved which contradicts Strategic Objective 4 & 5 regarding Health, well-being and environmental protection. This Consultation suggests five “spatial growth options”. All of which involve development within areas of Warwickshire’s Green Belt, and all include North Leamington Green Belt as an area of ‘significant urban extension’. Whilst this accords with the outcomes from a series of spatial growth workshops, which revealed a preference to promote development at scale within the Green Belt, the premise of these workshops is grossly flawed. The proposition that Green Belt serves no legitimate function and can simply be ‘switched off’ as an academic exercise contradicts the significant contributions that Warwick District Council and Stratford District Council have themselves noted that Green Belt designation makes. The Green Belt, with good reason, deliberately restricts what can be built within it. While the spatial growth workshops explored growth options excluding Green Belt development, none of these were included within the present five. This is contrary to recent Government announcements, the 2015 greenbelt review and the 2017 response by the Planning Inspector.

No

Ni roddwyd ateb

Yes

Ni roddwyd ateb

Yes

They look appropriate and achievable in a general sense but the options are 'blind' as to whether they impinge on or destroy the Green Belt. There is no reference to the importance and preservation of the Green Belt and the five purposes of the Green Belt should remain sacrosanct in any future Local Plan

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Whilst I support much of the vision and of the objectives put forward, these are undermined by three aspects of the plan. The plan is regarded as unrealistically long given the rate of social and economic change. The plan also has no milestones and is not SMART so that it is not anchored in current reality The very wide scope presented with 16 separate categories and over 100 questions is complex and fragmented. An even more serious problem is that whilst in the infrastructure section there is a strong emphasis on delivering associated infrastructure, the separate elements are not integrated at all. The development options in the plan are not predicated on the delivery of the necessary infrastructure and rely almost entirely on private sector contributions. Development will only be acceptable to the community in Henley if infrastructure needs are identified and committed prior to development commencing. Third as the merger of Stratford and Warwick councils did not proceed then the relevance of having joint visions and strategies is significantly weakened. Decisions or detailed land allocation decisions must be taken at the most local level possible, and top-down policies kept to a minimum. There is no evidence in the vision or objectives of the document that such a principle has ever even been discussed. The JPC is in the process of finalising its NDP and is looking to review once the housing requirement is known in order to control future development from a neighbourhood perspective. This will ensure through the NDP that the minimum housing requirement is met (or exceeded) to meet the Local Plan requirements but of a type, design and in a location that is acceptable locally.

No

Ni roddwyd ateb

Yes

Ni roddwyd ateb

Don't know

I would prefer the focus to be on wild spaces rather than tourism.

No

The vision and aims are very important but how realistic is it to expect them all to be met. Where will the compromise be?

No

i don't understand how building hundreds of homes between Weston and Hunningham is supposed to 'enrich' tourist potential and reduce crime! The entire proposal leans heavily towards developing in greenbelt areas which is what makes these areas desirable locations. Whilst i appreciate that this will therefore increase the value of the proposed properties, it has the opposite effect for the existing dwellings within these towns/villages. It definitely won't improve infrastructure within the area, nor will it 'enhance our environmental assets'. Planting a few trees, in response to loosing acres of greenbelt land isn't progress. The volume of vehicles that will be based in the proposed development is also going to hugely increase the pollution within the area!