BASE HEADER
Preferred Options 2025
Chwilio sylwadau
Canlyniadau chwilio Stoford Developments Ltd
Chwilio o’r newyddOther
Preferred Options 2025
Do you broadly support the proposals in the Introduction? If you have any additional points to raise with regards to this chapter please include them here.
ID sylw: 94388
Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Stoford Developments Ltd
There is no DtC between Stratford and Redditch/Bromsgrove Districts. All 3 LPAs are located within Area 9 of the WMSESS. Area 9 identifies a strategic sites need of 2-3 sites totaling 125ha. The South Warks Plan makes no attempts to meet this need, despite land within the District being located on the A435 corridor and junction 3 of the M42 - both within Area 9.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
Do you broadly support the proposals in the How to Have Your Say chapter? If you have any additional points to raise with regards to this chapter please include them here.
ID sylw: 94520
Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Stoford Developments Ltd
Our previous representations put forward land south east of junction 3 M42, including submitting this as part of the call for sites. and has reference ID no. 362. The site offers potential to provide strategic employment floorspace that could also complement the potential new settlement locations A1 and A2 within the Local Plan.
No
Preferred Options 2025
Do you broadly support the proposals in the Vision and Strategic Objectives: South Warwickshire 2050 chapter? If you have any additional points to raise with regards to this chapter please include them here.
ID sylw: 94638
Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Stoford Developments Ltd
Strategic Objective 4 should be expended to reflect the direction of policy as per para 86 of the NPPF. The NPPF is clear that particular regard should be had to facilitating development to meet the needs of a modern economy. The objective should comment on the objectives of the Plan to facilitate this, and refer to Plan identifying suitable locations for uses such as laboratories, gigafactories, data centres, digital infrastructure, freight and logistics.
No
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 1 - Meeting South Warwickshire's Sustainable Development Requirements?
ID sylw: 95447
Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Stoford Developments Ltd
We do not agree that the strategic site need of 125ha is sufficient.
The 125ha figure is a consequence of para 4.11 of the C&W Alignment Paper. The figure is a residual figure based on an assumed need (which we consider to be greater), and, with an existing strategic supply, deducted. As our own research prepared by Marron’s suggests (copy appended for details of the calculation), the residual strategic sites need across C&W should be increased. In addition, the assumed supply of strategic sites is less than the WMSESS advises.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
Do you have any comments on a specific site proposal or the HELAA results?
ID sylw: 95509
Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Stoford Developments Ltd
We consider that there is potential for a strategic employment site at site 362. This could also address the cross boundary issue of employment land with Redditch/Bromsgrove, and provide employment land to complement a new settlement at A1 or A2 locations.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
Potential Settlement Question A1
ID sylw: 95528
Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Stoford Developments Ltd
Location has the potential for rail station connectivity. Additional land adj to the M42 could be allocated to serve strategic employment needs. Site A1 could also assist in meeting unmet housing needs from Redditch/Bromsgrove.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
Potential Settlement Question A2
ID sylw: 95532
Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Stoford Developments Ltd
Location has the potential for rail station connectivity. Additional land adj to the M42 could be allocated to serve strategic employment needs. Site A2 could also assist in meeting unmet housing needs from Redditch/Bromsgrove.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 2 - Potential New Settlements?
ID sylw: 95546
Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Stoford Developments Ltd
Agree with the need for at least one new settlement . The policy however makes no reference to the new settlements having a component of employment land, which in our view is a missed opportunity and should be addressed.
No
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 4- Accommodating Growth Needs Arising from Outside South Warwickshire?
ID sylw: 95579
Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Stoford Developments Ltd
The policy refers to meeting employment needs that cannot be met in the administrative boundaries of an authority where the need arises, and that could be met in full or partly, within South Warwickshire. However the policy refers to this being on reserve sites. Where are these reserve sites for employment? They are not identifiable in this Plan. In addition, what is the trigger mechanism for releasing land to meet employment needs arising from an adjacent LPA - noting that the adopted Stratford Core Strategy included land allocated at Redditch Gateway to met the needs of Redditch from the outset.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 7- Green Belt?
ID sylw: 95593
Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Stoford Developments Ltd
We agree with the approach that further work is required to explore Green Belt release. however the policy refers to releasing land from the Green Belt only in the case of meeting South Warks needs - and not meeting the needs of adjacent LPAs such as Redditch/Bromsgrove. This should be clarified. In addition, given the longer timeframe of this Plan, which we support), the opportunity to identify Safeguarded Land for the future is welcomed and should be a part of a later iteration.
