Yes

-Yes we agree with the overall vision to meet housing and economic development needs for South Warwickshire to 2050, including where appropriate and agreed, unmet needs from neighbouring authorities. Providing land for homes and jobs in the right places is critical to addressing housing shortfalls and economic needs, and ensuring South Warwickshire is an attractive and dynamic place to live and work. -We also generally agree that the strategic objectives are appropriate.

dewiswyd

dewiswyd

dewiswyd

dewiswyd

dewiswyd

dewiswyd

dewiswyd

dewiswyd

Yes

Ni roddwyd ateb

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Yes

Yes if a new settlement is proposed it is critical that it is rail served.

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Appropriate strategy

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

Yes

A higher limit is appropriate

dewiswyd

dewiswyd

- Q-S2: We support option S2B. An ‘in principle’ policy support for intensification is appropriate subject to design guidance. This would support making best use of existing urban areas. - Q-S3.2: We support option S3.2a. An ‘in principle’ support for brownfield development where it corresponds with the growth strategy. This would support making best use of existing urban areas and previously developed land. - Q-S4.1: Yes growth of existing settlements should be the main option within the overall growth strategy. This ensures making best use of existing infrastructure and sustainable patterns of development. Please see full response to this at Q-S7.2. - Q-S5.2: We are not against the principle of new settlements but the history of these shows that they require significant new infrastructure and take a long time to be delivered. It is critical that if such is part of the strategy they must be proven to be viable, deliverable, accessible and sustainable, and only one part of the overall strategy. We would only support a new settlement(s) to be part of the preferred option if combined with the growth of existing settlements. Existing settlements are supported by existing infrastructure and are inherently more sustainable and can be delivered quicker than new settlements thus securing housing supply in the earlier stages of the Local Plan. - Q-S8.2: Although in principle a threshold approach could provide useful guidance for a smaller settlements growth, a standardized approach is difficult as settlement sizes vary enormously. A standard limit of 10 dwellings as suggested is certainly too small as whilst it may be appropriate in a very small settlement, it would be too low for many settlements. A limit of 10 units also results in no affordable housing being provided. If a standard threshold is considered necessary it should be expressed as a % of the houses in the existing settlement. - Q-S9: We support Option S9b. It is clearly essential that the Part 1 Plan should include a fresh review of all settlement boundaries. This issue of settlement boundaries raises the problem of pursuing a 2 stage Local Plan which we do not support. See our full response to Chapter 12: Plan Context.