Other

ID sylw: 105133

Derbyniwyd: 24/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Tony Reece

I find the scheme to be heavy-handed and an unacceptable imposition on the South Warwickshire landscape, which I cherish. This appears to be the beginning of extensive development that will erode the rural aspect of the area. The current land-grab overlooks essential needs, such as addressing the nature crisis affecting food security and biodiversity. While I understand the necessity for housing and public services, it is equally important to preserve open landscapes for future generations. This scheme risks becoming a regrettable chapter in Warwickshire's history.

Other

ID sylw: 105582

Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Sian Kellaway

What is being done to protect the character of the area and villages such as Gaydon and Lighthorne? Sites are effecting huge swaths of countryside / footpaths / wildlife
Solar farm developments also taking countryside.

Other

ID sylw: 105834

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Kevin Wrather

Kenilworth has already suffered enough housing development over the past number of years.. Open green spaces are important for everyone’s personal well being. The roads around the town are far too narrow to be able to deal with ever increasing traffic numbers and already Warwick Road is often gridlocked creating health damaging exhaust fumes.
The green belt has already been ruined by the ugly monstrosity that is HS2..
Please protect our open spaces… Allow areas for wildlife to flourish and allow us to breath clean air..
Thank you

No

ID sylw: 106681

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Warwickshire Property and Development Group

Asiant : Framptons

We are informed that the policy will be used to ensure that development avoids detrimental effects on “the landscape setting and on features which make a significant contribution to the character and setting of an asset, settlement or area”. This wording is not considered sufficiently precise and consequently too broad in its scope. Given other proposed policies, such as those aimed at protecting valued landscapes, designated areas of restraint or areas of open space, we believe this policy represents a duplication of effort and is not justified.
The Policy also advises that the Council will “explore” the need for major development applications to require a full Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. Given that a planning application for 10 dwellings would constitute a “major development”, we consider that it would be entirely disproportionate for a full LIVA to be submitted in the majority of cases for schemes of this or a similar size.
The Policy also suggests that where a proposal would result in landscape harm, the general principle is that it should be refused unless there will be an overriding benefit of development, with meeting an evidenced local housing need presented as an example. Given that the majority the housing requirement in the SWLP will be provided on greenfield sites, any development is likely to have a degree of landscape harm as it will result in development taking place in an area where there is currently no built development. This does not, however, mean that the starting point for determination of an application is a presumption it should be refused. Landscape impact is just one of several matters that will need to be considered as part of the determination process. The draft wording of the policy Direction 48 therefore elevates the importance of landscape harm beyond other considerations, which is not an appropriate policy position the Councils should pursue.

Other

ID sylw: 106907

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Historic England

We welcome the inclusion of this policy direction at this stage of plan making and suggest that heritage assets and historic landscapes are specifically referenced within the policy.

No

ID sylw: 106990

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Bellway Homes

Asiant : Savills

We note that further evidence is being produced to inform the landscape character of sites and is expected to be published with the Regulation 19 SWLP. We withhold comment until this evidence has been made available.
The overriding need for housing is recognised in the draft policy direction 48, Warwick District currently only has 4.01 years supply. The policy should be clear that it is not just ‘local need’ but District wide need which would outweigh landscape harm.

Yes

ID sylw: 107091

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Cotswolds National Landscape Board

Yes, the Cotswolds National Landscape (CNL) Board agrees with the approach outlined in Draft Policy Direction 48.
In the context of the CNL, this approach will help to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the CNL.

Other

ID sylw: 107370

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: National Trust

Protecting and enhancing landscape character – As set out above, the National Trust cares for places which are located within extraordinary landscapes, which contribute significantly to the setting of the heritage assets and the historic parks and gardens. The combination of the places within these landscapes delivers enormous public benefit in terms of visual amenity and health and wellbeing for our visitors. It is therefore essential that the landscape character is sought to be protected and enhanced. The National Trust are supportive of the establishment of Landscape Description Units (LDUs) which represent the landscape type in a specific location, for example soil, tree cover character, geology, topography, land use and settlement pattern. The LDUs refine the identification of special qualities of a landscape character area, and it is considered that these would be useful in considering development at National Trust properties, or development which may impact these places.
Whilst we are supportive of draft policy direction 48, which sets out that development will avoid detrimental effects on the landscape setting and on features which make a significant contribution to the character and setting of an asset, settlement or area, we do express some concern in respect of the criteria whereby development that could cause harm to landscape setting could be considered appropriate where there are over-riding benefits of the development, for instance to meet an evidenced local housing need. We note the requirement for major development to require a full Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) to be undertaken to assess the impact of the development however we consider that due regard must be given to heritage impact assessment, and where minor development is proposed within close proximity of significant heritage assets, it may be appropriate that an LVIA would also be required to demonstrate that there would be no impact on the landscape character, or that the impact would be acceptable when appropriately mitigated.

We would request that the South Warwickshire Local Plan incorporates this amendment to ensure that nuance is applied to the assessment of developments within close proximity to highly designated place.

Other

ID sylw: 107395

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Warwickshire Wildlife Trust

Development should not be allowed in these landscape character area, and the caveats should be removed (such as that ‘unless there would be an over-riding benefit, for instance to meet an evidenced local housing need’). The Local Plan should be allocating suitable land for housing need without needing to allow additional development in key areas for wildlife.
The NERC duty places a legal duty on Councils to legally consider biodiversity, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 also protects wildlife and biodiversity.

Other

ID sylw: 107767

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Bellway Strategic Land

Asiant : Savills

We note that further evidence is being produced to inform the landscape character of sites and is expected to be published with the Regulation 19 SWLP. We withhold comment until this evidence has been made available. The policy should be clear that it is not just ‘local need’ but District wide need which would outweigh landscape harm.

Other

ID sylw: 107793

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Bellway Homes

Asiant : Savills

We note that further evidence is being produced to inform the landscape character of sites and is expected to be published with the Regulation 19 SWLP. We withhold comment until this evidence has been made available. The policy should be clear that it is not just ‘local need’ but District wide need which would outweigh landscape harm.

Other

ID sylw: 107870

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Catesby Estates Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

This policy direction is broadly supported, with it generally aligning with the aspirations in the NPPF with regards to the protection and enhancement of landscapes, set out in, for example, Paragraph 187. However, it should be noted that Paragraph 135(c) does state that whilst development should be sympathetic to the surrounding landscape, this should not prevent or discourage appropriate innovation or change, such as increased densities. This should be acknowledged within the policy. It is affirmed that it is unnecessary for all major developments to provide Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments (LVIA) as currently suggested. This will need to be fully justified, and such justification has not been provided within the Preferred Options document. The need for an LVIA should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and/or specific criteria for when one is required should be prepared by the Councils.

Yes

ID sylw: 107892

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land

Asiant : Turley

Taylor Wimpey welcome recognition of the overriding considerations, for instance local housing need, where proposed development would result in some landscape harm.
This should be expanded to include instances where the principle of development is established through the NPPF and also where the benefit of providing development would outweigh the harm.

Other

ID sylw: 107991

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Rainier Developments Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

This policy direction is broadly supported, with it generally aligning with the aspirations in the NPPF with regards to the protection and enhancement of landscapes, set out in, for example, Paragraph 187. However, it should be noted that Paragraph 135(c) does state that whilst development should be sympathetic to the surrounding landscape, this should not prevent or discourage appropriate innovation or change, such as increased densities. This should be acknowledged within the policy. It is affirmed that it is unnecessary for all major developments to provide Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments (LVIA) as currently suggested. This will need to be fully justified, and such justification has not been provided within the Preferred Options document. The need for an LVIA should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and/or specific criteria for when one is required should be prepared by the Councils.

Other

ID sylw: 108101

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Seven Homes

Asiant : Pegasus Group

This policy direction is broadly supported, with it generally aligning with the aspirations in the NPPF with regards to the protection and enhancement of landscapes, set out in, for example, Paragraph 187. However, it should be noted that Paragraph 135(c) does state that whilst development should be sympathetic to the surrounding landscape, this should not prevent or discourage appropriate innovation or change, such as increased densities. This should be acknowledged within the policy. It is affirmed that it is unnecessary for all major developments to provide Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments (LVIA) as currently suggested. This will need to be fully justified, and such justification has not been provided within the Preferred Options document. The need for an LVIA should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and/or specific criteria for when one is required should be prepared by the Councils.

No

ID sylw: 108244

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Persimmon Homes (South Midlands)

Asiant : Pegasus Group

This policy direction is broadly supported, with it generally aligning with the aspirations in the NPPF with regards to the protection and enhancement of landscapes, set out in, for example, Paragraph 187. However, it should be noted that Paragraph 135(c) does state that whilst development should be sympathetic to the surrounding landscape, this should not prevent or discourage appropriate innovation or change, such as increased densities. This should be acknowledged within the policy. It is affirmed that it is unnecessary for all major developments to provide Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments (LVIA) as currently suggested. This will need to be fully justified, and such justification has not been provided within the Preferred Options document. The need for an LVIA should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and/or specific criteria for when one is required should be prepared by the Councils.

No

ID sylw: 108259

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Sovereign Man Simon of the family Thomas

Development should not be allowed in the area, and the caveats should be removed (such as that ‘unless there would be an over-riding benefit, for instance to meet an evidenced local housing need’). The Local Plan should be allocating suitable land for housing need.

No

ID sylw: 108292

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Spitfire Homes

Asiant : Harris Lamb

No. The Policy is disproportionate and unclear. For example, it advises that the Council will “explore” the need for major development applications to require a full Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. A planning application for 11 dwellings would constitute a major development. It would be entirely disproportionate for a LIVA to be submitted for the majority of cases for schemes of this size.
The Policy also suggests that where a proposal would result in landscape harm, the general principle is that it should be refused unless there will be an overriding benefit of development. The majority of the Plan’s housing requirement will be provided on greenfield sites due to a lack of brownfield land. Any development of a greenfield site is likely to have a degree of landscape harm as it will result in any development taking place in an area where there is currently no built development. This does not, however, mean that the starting point for determination of an application is a presumption it should be refused. Landscape impact is just one of many matters that needs to be considered as part of the determination process. The draft wording of the policy Direction 48 would appear to elevate the importance of landscape harm beyond other considerations.

No

ID sylw: 108480

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: The Bird Group

Asiant : Framptons

Given other proposed policies, such as those aimed at protecting valued landscapes, designated areas of restraint or areas of open space, we believe this policy represents a duplication of effort and is not justified.
The Policy also advises that the Council will “explore” the need for major development applications to require a full Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. Given that a planning application for 10 dwellings would constitute a “major development”, we consider that it would be entirely disproportionate for a full LIVA to be submitted in the majority of cases for schemes of this or a similar size.
Given that the majority the development requirement in the SWLP will be provided on greenfield sites, any development is likely to have a degree of landscape harm as it will result in development taking place in an area where there is currently no built development. This does not, however, mean that the starting point for determination of an application is a presumption it should be refused. Landscape impact is just one of several matters that will need to be considered as part of the determination process. The draft wording of the policy Direction 48 therefore elevates the importance of landscape harm beyond other considerations, which is not an appropriate policy position the Councils should pursue.

No

ID sylw: 108606

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Corbally Group (Harbury) Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

This policy direction is broadly supported, with it generally aligning with the aspirations in the NPPF with regards to the protection and enhancement of landscapes, set out in, for example, Paragraph 187. However, it should be noted that Paragraph 135(c) does state that whilst development should be sympathetic to the surrounding landscape, this should not prevent or discourage appropriate innovation or change, such as increased densities. This should be acknowledged within the policy. It is affirmed that it is unnecessary for all major developments to provide Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments (LVIA) as currently suggested. This will need to be fully justified, and such justification has not been provided within the Preferred Options document. The need for an LVIA should be considered on a case-by-case basis, and/or specific criteria for when one is required should be prepared by the Councils.

Yes

ID sylw: 108650

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kiely Bros Holdings Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

Policy Direction 48 – Protecting and Enhancing Landscape Character
10.25.
This policy direction is broadly supported. However, it should be noted that NPPF §135(c) does state that whilst development should be sympathetic to the surrounding landscape, this should not prevent or discourage appropriate innovation or change, such as increased densities. This should be acknowledged within the policy.
10.26.
It is affirmed that it is unnecessary for all major developments to provide Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments (LVIA) as currently suggested. This will need to be fully justified, and such justification has not been provided within the Preferred Options document. The need for an LVIA should be considered on a case
-by-case basis, and/or specific criteria for when one is required should be prepared by the Councils.