Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Q S5.3 & 5.4: Depends on the location. Warwick and Leamington have regular, reliable, rapid train services to Birmingham and London. The Henley railway line has an infrequent slow service to Birmingham with trains often cancelled. For this reason, we rarely now get the train from Henley to Birmingham with preference for car usage, I know we are not alone in this. It may look good on a map that Henley has a train station but in reality the service is poor, an unreliable service should not be the main basis for a potential location of growth. More information needs to be collated about local services prior to basing housing strategy on them.

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non- greenbelt site.

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non- greenbelt site.

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non- greenbelt site.

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

New Settlements With caveats, we support a new settlement approach. It is clear that the housing numbers, whatever they are they will be too large to be sensibly met by adding housing around existing settlements as has occurred for decades (centuries even) with consequent pressure on infrastructure. New settlement(s) are needed with proper infrastructure.

Yes

Yes

This seems to be a sensible approach to delivery of growth. Growth to focus close to existing rail stations or in areas that already have regular bus connectivity to the station.

Yes

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

This is not a simple yes/no question. Assess each potential location and its transport infrastructure on its individual green and low emissions merits.

Yes

Yes

Yes. The Respondent considers it sensible to look to rail corridors as a preferred approach to the identification of potential locations. However, given the problems and delays that can often occur with the provision of new rail services and stations, it considered that the intensification of existing rail services should be considered before new ones. The Respondent’s site to the south of Henley-in-Arden is an ideal candidate for future housing development in this context given its location within walking distance to Henley-in-Arden Station.

Yes

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Q-S5.2: - We consider that new settlements should be part of the overall strategy. However, we have concerns that the Council’s preparing the emerging SWLP are overlooking more sustainable site locations for new housing development, and prioritising less sustainable site locations for new housing development. This matter is discussed below and within our wider SWLP Representations Statement (March 2023). Q-S5.3: As well as focusing new housing development alongside existing rail corridors, the LPA’s should also consider focusing new housing development near to public transport bus services routes. Development sites within existing settlements should also be strongly pursued, such as the Lockley Homes large infill site located within the Village of Broom settlement, within the western part of the Stratford-on-Avon District. The focus of the emerging Local Plan is currently far too narrow, just to focus solely on rail corridors, and will fail to meet the objectives of paragraphs 60 (boost the supply of housing) and 79 (focus new housing development towards existing rural village settlements) of the Revised NPPF (2021). As stated, far too much priority is being placed on the importance of rail corridors – which fails to deliver “a More Positively Prepared Local Plan” in line with paragraph 35 (indent a) of the Revised NPPF (2021). Site locations with good access to bus routes and site locations located adjacent to existing rural village settlements should be afforded significantly more planning policy weight and should be considered as favourable locations for new housing development. This planning policy approach has considerable planning policy support in paragraph 79 of the Revised NPPF (2021) which confirms that: “…To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it would enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive…” To help effectively address the Climate Change Emergency within the South Warwickshire Region, the types of site locations recommended by paragraph 79 of the Revised NPPF (2021) should be urgently prioritised for new housing development by the LPA’s preparing both the emerging SWLP and SAP Local Plan Reviews. As a key local stakeholder and developer of very high quality residential schemes, we have continued concerns that both the emerging SWLP and its sister document Stratford-on-Avon District Council’s emerging Site Allocations Plan (SAP), are both failing to promote the most sustainable patterns of new housing development across the South Warwickshire Region, in direct conflict with paragraphs 7, 8, 10, 11 (indent a), 35 (indent d), 38, 79, 120 (indent d), 141 (indent a) and 142 of the Revised NPPF (2021) – which all reinforce the need for Local Planning Authorities (LPA’s) to promote the most sustainable patterns of new housing development when preparing emerging Local Plan Reviews. Competent LPA’s should already be aware of this NPPF guidance and its critical importance to Local Plan-making.

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Q S5.3 & 5.4 In response to the climate change emergencies, we are looking at rail corridors as a preferred approach to identifying potential locations. Do you agree? Depends on the location. Warwick and Leamington have regular, reliable, rapid train services to Birmingham and London. The Henley railway line has an infrequent slow service to Birmingham with trains often cancelled. For this reason, we rarely now get the train from Henley to Birmingham with preference for car usage, I know we are not alone in this. It may look good on a map that Henley has a train station but in reality the service is poor, an unreliable service should not be the main basis for a potential location of growth. More information needs to be collated about local services prior to basing housing strategy on them.

Yes

Yes

Ni roddwyd ateb

No

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Ni roddwyd ateb

Yes

Yes

This approach is supported, the Joint Local Plan seeks to reduce the need to travel to meet daily needs in order to reduce emissions and the overall impact on climate change. The modelling within Table 5 of the Local Plan demonstrates that Growth Option 4 (Sustainable Travel & Economy) would have an estimated lower cumulative level of emissions in and a lower level of annual emissions. Lone Star Land Ltd support utilisation of railway corridors for future development and growth with the provision of new infrastructure to facilitate development in sustainable locations and enable greater usage of sustainable modes of transport in South Warwickshire.

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Q-S5.2: Given the comments set out previously, it is not considered to be reasonable to draw informed conclusions at this stage, given that there is no available information relating to the availability, suitability, and achievability of the broad locations identified for potential new settlements. In the absence of this critical information, it is not considered to be possible to meaningfully assess the relative benefits of this alternative spatial option. The SA report notes: High level assessment of Spatial Growth Options that are not all distinct from each other, with the exception of Option 5, means that sustainability performance can only be evaluated with several caveats (paragraph 7.15.1). It is recommended that, whichever spatial strategy is deemed to be preferable, the Councils undertake further work to establish appropriate development sites to support the vitality and viability of Local Service Villages, such as Priors Marston. Q-S5.3: According with the response to Q-S5.2, given the lack of available information relating to the deliverability of any of the potential locations for new settlements, it is not considered to be possible to draw meaningful conclusions relating to their appropriateness within a preferred spatial strategy. Q-S5.4: In accordance with the discussion set out above, Spatial Strategy 5 – Dispersed is recommended as the most appropriate available spatial strategy option moving forward.

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Yes

Q-S5.2: I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non-greenbelt site. Q-S5.3: I feel that the prioritisation of rail corridors may offer a sensible option for development. There is substantial scope to include development alongside rail corridors outside of the greenbelt. I feel development alongside rail corridors to the South of the region, explicitly avoiding greenbelt development should be supported. The plan outlines that an indicative 6000 new homes would be sufficient to support a new rail station, and there is ample geographical options to achieve this outside of the greenbelt. Additionally, this would reduce the likelihood of overcrowding existing areas/stations in locations with existing stations in the Greenbelt. Development in North Leamington is not appropriate to use Leamington Spa station as there is already heavy traffic congestion in people moving from the North to the South of the town. A new station in the greenbelt is unacceptable. The Climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land, this is a weak argument as there are other ways of mitigating against the climate emergency without developing on greenbelt.

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Yes

Q-S5.2: It is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non-greenbelt site. Q-S5.3: The prioritisation of rail corridors may offer a sensible option for development. There is substantial scope to include development alongside rail corridors outside of the greenbelt. Development alongside rail corridors to the South of the region, explicitly avoiding greenbelt development should be supported. The plan outlines that an indicative 6000 new homes would be sufficient to support a new rail station, and there is ample geographical options to achieve this outside of the greenbelt. Additionally, this would reduce the likelihood of overcrowding areas and stations in locations with existing stations in the Greenbelt. Development in North Leamington is not appropriate to use Leamington Spa station as there is already heavy traffic congestion in people moving from the North to the South of the town. A new station in the greenbelt is unacceptable. The Climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land, this is a weak argument as there are other ways of mitigating against the climate emergency without developing on greenbelt.

Don't know

Don't know

Q-S5.3: The term corridor for rail is a little confusing given the distance between stations. It might be more relevant in describing a bus-based corridor where stops are much more frequent. Q-S5.4: Given limitations over capacity, frequency and level of service on the rail network it is probably misplaced to use the rail network as the ‘predominant’ rationale behind the locational strategy, but that public transport should be one of several factors used to steer the locational strategy. This point is of heightened significance post Covid context, where working from home is far more prevalent and, where road transport is required to become carbon free in the foreseeable future. This suggests that greater importance in decisions on the locational framework should relate to quality-of-life considerations. These would tend to favour more development taking place in smaller developments dispersed across the plan area. The existing pattern of development would continue maintain the health of the main existing settlements where regeneration activities would need to be concentrated. A dispersed pattern of development would help to sustain and enhance existing services across the plan area and, could help to improve bus services in those areas that do not have immediate access to rail services.

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non-greenbelt site.

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Depends on the location. Warwick and Leamington have regular, reliable, rapid train services to Birmingham and London. The Henley railway line has an infrequent slow service to Birmingham with trains often cancelled. For this reason, we rarely now get the train from Henley to Birmingham with preference for car usage, I know we are not alone in this. It may look good on a map that Henley has a train station but in reality the service is poor, an unreliable service should not be the main basis for a potential location of growth. More information needs to be collated about local services prior to basing housing strategy on them.

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing SO. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non- greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non-greenbelt site. The "planting" of a development at this Scale is disproportionate and would require new infrastructure which would cause huge, congestion air quality and traffic noise would be unacceptable especially at a time when environmental consideration should be at the FOREFRONT of 21st century planning

Don't know

Don't know

Q-S5.3: The term corridor for rail is a little confusing given the distance between stations. It might be more relevant in describing a bus-based corridor where stops are much more frequent. Q-S5.4: Given limitations over capacity, frequency and level of service on the rail network it is probably misplaced to use the rail network as the ‘predominant’ rationale behind the locational strategy, but that public transport should be one of several factors used to steer the locational strategy. This point is of heightened significance post Covid context, where working from home is far more prevalent and, where road transport is required to become carbon free in the foreseeable future. This suggests that greater importance in decisions on the locational framework should relate to quality-of-life considerations. These would tend to favour more development taking place in smaller developments dispersed across the plan area. The existing pattern of development would continue maintain the health of the main existing settlements where regeneration activities would need to be concentrated. A dispersed pattern of development would help to sustain and enhance existing services across the plan area and, could help to improve bus services in those areas that do not have immediate access to rail services.

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non- greenbelt site.

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non- greenbelt site.

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non- greenbelt site.

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non- greenbelt site.

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Yes

Q-S5.2: We feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are no exceptional circumstances for doing so. It is unacceptable that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) principles are NOT being adhered to, as multiple new settlement locations, in greenbelt land, are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non-greenbelt site. Q-S5.3: We feel that the prioritisation of rail corridors may offer a sensible option for development. There is substantial scope to include development alongside rail corridors outside of the greenbelt. We feel development alongside rail corridors to the south of the region, explicitly avoiding greenbelt development, should be supported. The plan outlines that an indicative 6,000 new homes would be sufficient to support a new rail station, and there are ample geographical options to achieve this outside of the greenbelt. Additionally, this would reduce the likelihood of overcrowding existing stations. Development in north Leamington would increase traffic to and from Leamington station so contributing to the already heavy traffic congestion in the centre of the town. A new station in the greenbelt is unacceptable. The Climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land. This is a weak argument as there are other ways of mitigating against the climate emergency without developing on greenbelt.

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non-greenbelt site.

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Q-S.5.2 New Settlements Greenbelt land provides a distance and balance between towns. This is important and provides individuality to travellers and inhabitants. New settlements should not be sited on such an important provider of diversification. Brownfield sites would be a preferable choice to provide new settlement sites that can interact with the local existing and supporting urban infrastructure. Q-S5.3 Rail Corridors Rail transportation is important for commuters and movements of goods.It is sensible to use brownbelt sites to provide housing, warehousing and logistic services close to the rail corridors connecting to the South i.e. prioritise South Warwickshire and non greenbelt land. Electric rail transportation is beneficial in combatting the climate concerns - a concern that the Midlands must take seriously as a logistic hub.

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Yes

Ni roddwyd ateb

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Yes

Ni roddwyd ateb