BASE HEADER

Yes

ID sylw: 107283

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Cotswolds National Landscape Board

The Preferred Options consultation has taken an unusual approach by including more sites than are actually needed to accommodate South Warwickshire’s identified housing need. This means that there are many more sites for the Board to comment on than would normally be the case.
The Preferred Options consultation includes many sites that are either within the Cotswolds National Landscape (CNL), that overlap with the CNL boundary or that are in the setting of the CNL. We provide an analysis of these sites below.
Key considerations include whether:
• the potential allocations would:
o conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the CNL;
o further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the CNL (i.e. leave the natural beauty of the CNL in a better state).
• allocations within the CNL would:
o be small in scale and extent;
o constitute major development in the context of paragraph 190 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF);
In this context, it is important to address natural beauty in its holistic sense. This includes not only the area’s landscape and scenic beauty, but also its cultural heritage (including historic environment), natural heritage (including biodiversity) and relative tranquillity. The ‘special qualities’ of the CNL are a key consideration as are the key features / characteristics of the relevant landscape character types.
In principle, site allocations that would harm the natural beauty of the CNL should not be taken forward. If any sites are taken forward that would harm the natural beauty of the CNL, consideration should be given to providing some form of compensation for the harm that would be caused.
Paragraph 189 of the NPPF requires great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes. This great weight applies not only to development within the CNL but also to development within its setting. For example, great weight should be given to the impact of development outside the CNL on views from the CNL.
As stated in footnote 68 of the NPPF, whether a proposal is ‘major development’ (in the context of paragraph 190 of the NPPF) is a matter for the decision maker, taking into account its nature, scale and setting, and whether it could have a significant adverse impact on the purpose for which the area has been designated’. With regards to ‘scale’, a key consideration is whether a development / allocation would be proportionate to the existing settlement.
The Board’s Landscape-led Development Position Statement (Appendix 5)102 provides a checklist of factors to consider when assessing whether a proposal constitutes major development. One of the questions in the checklist, relating to scale and proportionality, is:
• Would it exceed 5% of the size of - and / or the number of dwellings in - the existing settlement?
If the answer is ‘yes’ then it is more likely to constitute major development.
The 5% ‘rule of thumb’ threshold relating to size is based on what is now paragraph 76 and footnote 36 of the NPPF, which relate to community-led development and which provide the NPPF’s only definition of what constitute ‘proportionate’. Paragraph 76 states that community-led development adjacent to existing settlements and proportionate in size to them. Footnote 36 defines ‘proportionate’, in this context, stating that ‘community-led development exception sites should not … exceed 5% of the size of the existing settlement’.
The 5% ‘rule of thumb’ threshold relating to number of dwellings is partly based on the same definition of what is proportionate. It is also based on the assessment that was undertaken by South Downs National Park Authority to identify whether their potential Local Plan allocations would be major development in the context of what is now paragraph 190 of the NPPF.103 In that assessment:
• a potential allocation of 20 dwellings in the village of Coldwaltham (population of 850) was considered to be major development in relation to scale - at the 2011 census there were 421 dwellings in Coldwaltham, so 20 dwellings would be a 4.8% increase (i.e. a 4.8% increase was considered to be major development);
• a potential allocation of 30 dwellings in the village of Greatham, which had 400 dwellings, was considered to be major development in relation to scale (i.e. a 7.5% increase was considered to be major development).
Given that paragraph 189 of the NPPF requires the scale and extent of development in National Landscapes to be limited, we consider this to be an appropriate threshold to use in the context of housing development:
in settlements within the CNL (where an increase larger than 5% would indicate that it is likely to be major development);
• outside the CNL where the centre of the settlement and / or most of the existing built development is within the CNL (i.e. a CNL settlement);
• outside the CNL in settlements that are directly adjacent to the CNL boundary and which would be seen from higher elevation views within the CNL.
As stated in national planning practice guidance on the natural environment, national landscapes ‘are unlikely to be suitable areas for accommodating unmet needs from adjoining (non-designated) areas’ (Paragraph 041).104 This includes unmet needs relating to settlements that are adjacent to the CNL boundary. In other words, in principle, sites should not be allocated that would expand an adjacent settlement into the CNL (such as the potential allocation, within the CNL, at Tysoe).
Given that the CNL only occupies 5% of the South Warwickshire area (including 10.6% of the area of Stratford on Avon District), we consider that it is highly unlikely that exceptional circumstances could be demonstrated to justify allocations within the CNL that exceed the 5% proportionality threshold (i.e. major development). Therefore, in most cases, we recommend that sites within the CNL that exceed this threshold should be sifted out and not given further consideration. The main exception to this is where there is robust evidence of local need specific to the settlement / parish, such as:
• sites having already been allocated, or identified as reserve sites, in Neighbourhood Plans;
• data in a Rural Housing Needs Survey.
Slightly higher levels of housing provision might be appropriate in Category 2 and Category 3 Local Service Villages. This is because it is appropriate to focus housing provision in settlements that have a wider range of facilities and services. However, exceptional circumstances would still need to be demonstrated and the level of housing provision should not significantly exceed the 5% threshold.
If the standard method housing need figure could only be met by including allocations that would be harmful to the natural beauty of the CNL, consideration should be given to setting a housing requirement figure that is lower than the housing need figure. This approach would be consistent with paragraph 11b of the NPPF, which outlines the circumstances in which objectively needs don’t have to be met in full. This includes where the application of NPPF policies that relate to National Landscapes provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area. It is also consistent with the Government’s planning practice guidance on the natural environment, which states that the NPPF’s policies for protecting National Landscapes ‘may mean that it is not possible to meet objectively assessed needs for development in full through the plan-making process’.105
In the Preferred Options consultation, sites that would be located entirely within the CNL have been sifted out in Stage A of the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA). However, the Board does not agree with the principle of sifting out potential allocation sites on the basis of being located within the CNL. This is because we recognise that a small quantum of development may be appropriate in CNL settlements to ensure that they remain thriving and vibrant communities. Therefore, our analysis includes those sites that have been sifted out on this basis. In some instances, we recommend that these sites should be given further consideration.
Sites that overlap with the CNL boundary (i.e. sites that are partly within and partly outside the CNL) have not been sifted out in the HELAA process, even if the CNL component is not contiguous with the rest of the site. As a result, there are some sites that cover a large area of land within the CNL that are still being given further consideration. In the Board’s opinion, the CNL component of these larger sites would constitute major development and should not be taken forward.
Relevant settlements
There are several settlements that include potential allocations (including sites that have been sifted out) that are located within the CNL. These are:
• Brailes - nine sites (all of which have been sifted out).
• Cherington - two sites (including one that has been sifted out).
• Ilmington - five sites (including four that have been sifted out).
• Long Compton - seven sites (all of which have been sifted out).
• Tysoe - nine sites (including one that has been sifted out).
• Warmington - one site.
So, in total, we have given consideration to 33 sites at these settlements, including 21 sites that have been sifted out Stage A of the HELAA process.
There are also several additional settlements within the setting of the CNL that have potential allocations. These settlements are:
• Meon Vale / Long Marston / Long Marston Airfield
• Oxhill
• Quinton
• Shipston-on-Stour
• Quinton
Assessment
For the settlements that include potential allocations that are located within the CNL, the Board has compiled tables that provide the following information:
• RefID.
• Site name.
• Site area.
• % increase in area of settlement (based on settlement boundary area, calculated manually using the Preferred Options consultation interactive map) - an increase of up to 5% is shaded green, an increase of 5-10% is shaded amber and an increase of more than 10% is shaded red.
• Number of existing dwellings (based on 2021 census data106).
% increase in number of dwellings in the settlement - an increase of up to 5% is shaded green, an increase of 5-10% is shaded orange and an increase of more than 10% is shaded red.
• Landscape sensitivity (based Stratford on Avon District Council’s Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (LSA) of Local Service Villages) - a ‘high’ or ‘high-medium’ landscape sensitivity is shaded red and ‘medium’ landscape sensitivity is shaded orange.107
• Comments, including relevant information from the Preferred Options consultation interactive map and from the relevant Neighbourhood Plan.
With regards to landscape sensitivity, it is worth noting that the Board’s Landscape-led Development Position Statement states that locations that have high or medium-high landscape sensitivity to housing development would probably constitute major development (in the context of paragraph 190 of the NPPF) and should not be allocated.108 The exception to this would be for areas of medium-high landscape sensitivity where it is demonstrated that development impacts could be fully mitigated.
The lands parcels that were assessed in the LSA were very large. There could potentially be smaller areas of land, within these larger parcels that have a lower landscape sensitivity. To address this issue, we recommend that a further LSA should be undertaken specifically for those sites that might be given further consideration. Development in areas of ‘high / medium’ sensitivity would merit more consideration for development than areas of ‘high’ sensitivity.
Following on from these summary tables, our assessment then addresses key considerations such as the CNL’s ‘special qualities’, the CNL Landscape Character Assessment and the CNL Landscape Strategy & Guidelines (including key features / characteristics of the relevant landscape character types), and potential impacts on tranquillity (particularly in relation to traffic movements) and dark skies.
With regards to the CNL Landscape Strategy & Guidelines, strategies / guidelines that are common to all landscape character types include:
• Maintain the open, sparsely settled character by limiting new development to existing settlements and avoiding development between existing villages.
• Avoid development that will intrude negatively into the landscape and cannot be successfully mitigated, for example, extensions to settlements in areas of open landscape and / or onto the escarpment.
• Ensure that new development does not adversely affect the wider rural landscape and views.
• Ensure new development is proportionate and does not overwhelm the existing development.
• Conserve pattern of settlements fringing the lower slopes and their existing relationship to landform.
• Ensure that new development does not adversely affect settlement character and form.
These strategies / guidelines should be taken into account when assessing the suitability of the potential allocations. For the additional settlements that include potential allocations within the setting of the CNL, we primarily focus on potential impacts on views from the CNL and, for larger allocations, potential impacts on the tranquillity of the CNL (resulting from increases in traffic movements) and on the dark skies of the CNL.
For all sites, we conclude by stating whether we think that the site should sifted out or remain in consideration.
Recommendations
For sites within the CNL and sites within the CNL’s 3km buffer zone that the Council is considering taking forward to the Regulation 19 (pre-submission) consultation stage, we recommend that the following assessments should be undertaken:
• An updated landscape sensitivity assessment (LSA) specifically for the sites that are being proposed, including consideration of landscape and visual effects in relation to the CNL.
• For sites that would increase the number of dwellings in the settlement by 10% or more, an assessment of the potential increase in traffic movements on roads within - and along the boundary of the CNL that would result from the proposed allocation.
• An assessment of whether the allocation is likely to further the purpose of conserving the natural beauty of the CNL (including: (i) whether the allocation would have a (net) beneficial, harmful, neutral or negligible effect or no effect;109 and (ii) what reasonable and proportionate action could be taken to further this purpose, over and above avoidance and mitigation of harm).
For sites within the CNL, specifically, that remain in consideration, we recommend that an assessment should be undertaken to identify whether the site constitutes major development, in the context of paragraph 190 of the NPPF. If it is deemed to constitute major development, a further assessment should be undertaken to identify whether exceptional circumstances apply to justify the proposal.