BASE HEADER

Yes

ID sylw: 108265

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Spitfire Homes

Asiant : Harris Lamb

Yes, we fully support the identification of Long Marston Airfield (“LMA”) as a potential new settlement. It is suitable, sustainable and developable and can deliver a significant amount of residential and commercial development to assist in meeting the Plan’s development requirements. We do, however, have a series of concerns with the conclusions of the underpinning evidence base supporting the draft allocation.
1. It is our view that the Sustainability Appraisal of Site E1 – Long Marston Airfield, does not properly reflect the sustainability credentials of this potential new settlement location, and the significant benefits associated with its allocation for development.
2. The ISA’s approach to assessing flood risk is flawed. The flood zone assessment is based upon the proportion of site that falls outside of Flood Zone 1 and the proportion of the site affected by surface water flooding. The size of the new settlements varies from 242 hectares to 770 hectares. The significant difference in the size of the settlement distorts the assessment of flood risk.
3.We support the identification of Site E1 as the most sustainable settlement in terms of biodiversity and geodiversity.
4. New settlement E1 – Extension to Long Marston Airfield, is identified as the worst performing new settlement against the Landscaping Sustainability Objective. This is due to the suggestion it is likely to result in adverse impacts on the local landscape character, views from public rights of way and coalescence. In addition, it is suggested that it is likely to result in significant adverse impacts on the special quality of the setting of the Cotswold Natural Landscape Area which is located 45 metres from the settlement boundary.
We disagree with this conclusion.
5. Whilst we are supportive of new settlement E1 being identified as one of the most sustainable locations for development from a pollution perspective, we do not support the conclusion that the site should be marked down due to its proximity to a railway line on the basis this could potentially locate residents next to existing sources of air and noise pollution.
6. We support the identification of Site E1 as the most sustainable location for development in terms of impact on natural resources.
7.Spitfire are promoting HELAA site 175 – Stratford Agricultural Park and surrounding land, that forms part of the potential LMA new settlement. We are generally supportive of the HELAA’s conclusions regarding the suitability of the site for development.