BASE HEADER

No

ID sylw: 107564

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Jackie Chapman

We disagree with including F2 as a potential settlement location. It does not conform with the SWLP Strategic Objectives.

SO1: Unsustainable location. While F2 is close to a railway line, the nearest station is in Leamington Spa, 6 miles away. A new railway station is not viable. Residents would therefore travel via road to other stations. Health, education and community facilities are non-existent. Residents will travel to Southam, Leamington or Banbury to access facilities. They will require a car or a much-improved bus service.

SO2 & 3: No existing infrastructure. It could be provided as part of the new settlement but phasing and funding is a concern. Pressure would be placed on remote rural communities for many years until infrastructure is delivered and additional car journeys would be generated. See the example of Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath and the lack of an on-site Doctor’s surgery until 2028, which has led to strain on existing infrastructure elsewhere.

SO4: The greatest job opportunities are to the North in Birmingham and Coventry. F2 is distant from these area and all the Strategic Growth Locations. Residents would travel by car to access economic activity areas. The impacts of HS2 onrail traffic are uncertain and it was never designed or intended to assist travel from this area outwards, and to Coventry in particular.

Ref SO6: Biodiversity is harmed by building over open countryside. Excess car journeys and fossil fuel usage harm the environment.

Ref SO5: Use of agricultural fields in an isolated location is not efficient use of land and buildings. Significant re-use of previously-used land and buildings is not possible here. The site is adjacent to Bishop’s Hill, a recent housing development itself lacking community infrastructure. The area is bounded by flood zones to the NW and SE.

Ref SO9: F2 is some distance from major local tourist destinations so it is unlikely many tourists would stay there.

Ref SO11: The Jacob’s Transport Assessment shows this site is a poor choice. It would require significant infrastructure investment. Other sites would require less significant infrastructure and have less financial/environmental cost.

Ref SO12: A new settlement on existing agricultural land neither protects nor enhances environmental assets. Existing solar PV sites would sterilise continuity of any settlement. F2 should be removed from the plan to protect what already exists and allow opportunities for improving the green space network and exploring other biodiversity initiatives.