Yes

ID sylw: 107287

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Cotswolds National Landscape Board

Summary of Long Compton sites
There are seven sites at Long Compton, all of which have been sifted out in Stage A of the HELAA process on the basis of being located 100% in the CNL. As outlined above, the Board does not agree with the principle of ruling out sites on the basis of being located in the CNL. As such, we have reviewed these sites to see if they still merit further consideration, as outlined below. Additional considerations
Long Compton is primarily located within Landscape Character Type (LCT) 17 (Pastoral Lowland Vale).153 Any further assessments should have regard to the key features / characteristics of LCT 17. The CNL Landscape Strategy & Guidelines for LCT 17 states that existing vale settlements may have the capacity to accommodate some development where this does not interfere with, or detract from, their landscape setting.
Immediately to the north of Long Compton is LCT 6 (Ironstone Hills and Valleys)154 and immediately to the south is LCT 15 (Farmed Slopes)155. A key feature / characteristic of both these LCTs is the views that are experienced over wide areas of landscape, including across the Pastoral Lowland Vale (LCT 17). The CNL Landscape Strategy & Guidelines for LCT 17 states that the proximity to elevated viewing opportunities on the neighbouring Farmed Slopes increases the sensitivity of the Pastoral Lowland Vale to large scale development. The views that can be experienced from the Macmillan Way and Shakespeare’s Way, looking towards Long Compton from both the north and the south, are particularly important considerations in this regard.
Additional housing already allocated in Neighbourhood Plan
The Long Compton Neighbourhood Plan identifies three potential housing sites as shown in the map below •
Site 1 - The Old Piggeries, Old Hill, Long Compton: 0.4ha; 4/5 homes.
•
Site 2 - Land at Ashby Farmyard, Old Hill, Long Compton: 0.3ha; 5/7 homes.
•
Site 3 - Land for Affordable Housing, Off Weston Court, Long Compton: 0.9ha; nine homes in first phase (northern half of site), with possible future development, during the Plan period (i.e. 2011-2031), subject to identification of local need.
From Google maps, it appears that all of these sites have now been developed, apart from the southern half of Site 3. As such, with the exception of the southern half of Site 3, they pre-date the timescales of the SWLP, which will cover the period 2025-2030.
The southern half of Site 3 is approximately the same size as the northern half (i.e. approximately 4.5ha). So, if the southern half of Site 3 is developed at the same density as the northern half, there could be approximately 9-10 new dwellings. However, if it was developed at the indicative capacity used in the HELAA process (i.e. 33 dwellings per hectare), there could be approximately 13 dwellings.
13 dwellings would increase the number of dwellings in Long Compton parish by approximately 3.5%, compared to the 2021 census baseline of 370 dwellings. This is below the Board’s 5% ‘rule of thumb’ threshold for proportionality.
Sites 1 and 2 are within the settlement boundary but Site 3 is not. Presumably the settlement boundary will be expanded to include Site 3 give that development has already taken place there.
Conclusions
We consider that the primary location for further housing development in Long Compton should be the southern half of Site 3 in the Ilmington Neighbourhood Plan, directly north of and adjacent to RefID 666.157 As indicated above, this could potentially accommodate 13 dwellings, which would increase the number of dwellings in Long Compton parish by approximately 3.5%.
On this basis, with regards to proportionality, there is potentially scope for some additional housing development during the SWLP plan period of 2025-2050.
We consider that the following sites potentially merit further consideration:
•Ref ID 354 / Ref ID 425; and / or
•Ref ID 666.
For Ref ID 354 / Ref ID 425, consideration will need to be given to the potential impacts of any lighting on the adjacent Dark Skies Discovery Site (Aunt Phoebe’s Recreation Ground). Provided that lighting issues could be adequately addressed, this site is potentially a better option than RefID 166 as it is on previously developed land within the settlement boundary.
We recommend that the following sites should remain sifted out:
•RefID 309 - mainly because it is a potential Local Wildlife Site.
•RefID 353 - mainly because it would probably constitute major development in the context of paragraph190 of the NPPF.
•RefID 719 - we consider that this would definitely constitute major development in the context of paragraph 190 of the NPPF.

Yes

ID sylw: 107288

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Cotswolds National Landscape Board

Summary of Tysoe sites
At Tysoe, there are eight sites that remain in consideration. Of these (Ref ID 544), one overlaps with the CNL boundary and seven are located in the setting of the CNL.
In addition, one site (RefID 323) was sifted out because it was located entirely within the CNL. As outlined above, the Board does not agree with the principle of ruling out sites on the basis of being located in the CNL. As such, we have reviewed this site to see if it still merits further consideration, as outlined below.
RefID24: Land off Meadow Lane (additional information)
The Ref ID24 site covers part of the larger RefID 35 site.
This site is located approximately 100m from the boundary of the CNL but is separated from the CNL by the existing built development of Middle Tysoe.
The site extends northwards beyond the existing built development (and settlement boundary) of Middle Tysoe by approximately 75m. This wouldn’t be a significant addition to the total length of built development in Middle / Upper Tysoe, which currently extends approximately 1,300m from south to north. However, it would reduce the gap between built development in Middle Tysoe and Lower Tysoe by approximately 25% (the current gap being approximately 300m). This could potentially contribute to a sense of coalescence between the two.
Development in the western end of the site would also extend built development further west than on neighbouring land to the south, which could potentially create a perception of intruding into the open landscape to the west.
Overall, allocating this site could potentially result in some minor adverse effects for visual receptors in the CNL. However, these effects could be reduced by ensuring that development does not extend:
• further north than the current settlement boundary (unless the adjacent site, RefID 296, is allocated / developed first);
• further west than the western boundary of the school playing field to the south.
REfID35: Land to the rear of Meadow Lane, Tysoe (additional information)
The RefID 35 site includes the land that is in the RefID 24 site and some additional land.
This site is a larger version of site RefID 24. Similar considerations apply for both sites. However, this site is considerably larger than RefID 24, resulting in a larger quantum of housing, and extends further west, resulting in a more significant intrusion into the open countryside. Developing up to the north-western corner would bring the built development of Middle Tysoe within approximately 220m of built development at Lower Tysoe.
Development on this site could potentially impinge on two of the ‘valued views’ identified in the Tysoe Neighbourhood Plan, specifically View 4 (From Lower Tysoe towards Middle Tysoe) and View 5 (From the footpath south of Lower Tysoe towards Middle Tysoe). This would be to a greater degree than for RefID 24.
RefID 296: Land to the North of Lower Grounds, Middle Tysoe (additional information)
This site is located adjacent to the CNL boundary, on the opposite side of Tysoe Road.
The site extends northwards beyond the existing built development (and settlement boundary) of Middle Tysoe by approximately 75m. This wouldn’t be a significant addition to the total length of built development in Middle / Upper Tysoe, which currently extends approximately 1,300m from south to north. However, it would reduce the gap between built development in Middle Tysoe and Lower Tysoe by approximately 25% (the current gap being approximately 300m). This could potentially contribute to a sense of coalescence between the two, for example when viewed from the Centenary Way, within the CNL.
Having said that, the hedge along the northern boundary of the site (which also extends further westwards) could provide a robust and definitive limit of development for Middle / Upper Tysoe, with a clear gap still being maintained between the village and the hamlet.
RefID 397: South of Oxhill Road, Tysoe (additional information)
This site is located approximately 300m of the CNL boundary to the south and approximately 380m to the south.
71
Development on this site is likely to have an adverse impact on views from the Public Right of Way (PROW) footpaths in the vicinity of Windmill Hill. From these viewpoints, the development on the site would be seen to protrude to the side of the existing development at Middle / Upper Tysoe rather than being seen in the foreground or background of this existing development. As such, it would be relatively prominent.
Development on the site would adversely affect the setting of Windmill Hill Windmill, which is a Grade II listed building. In views from Windmill Hill, the development would be seen behind Tysoe Manor (Grade II* listed building), replacing the currently undeveloped backdrop. As such it would also adversely affect the setting of Tysoe Manor, both in terms of its proximity and in terms of the views of Tysoe Manor from Windmill Hill.
The higher elevations of Windmill Hill lie within Landscape Character Type (LCT) 6 - Ironstone Hills and Valleys. One of the key features / characteristics of LCT 6 is the dramatic sweeping views over wide areas of the landscape. Development on this site would adversely affect this key feature / characteristic.
Development on the site would also be visible from the PROW footpath, to the south east of Upper Tysoe, on the Cotswold escarpment and from the road up the escarpment to Tysoe Hill. Views from the escarpment are one of the ‘special qualities’ of the CNL and one of the key features / characteristics of LCT 2 (Escarpment).
RefID 544: Lower Tysoe - West, East & North (additional information)
RefID 544 appears to be the same as RefID 571, except that RefID 571 doesn’t include the section of RefID 544 that is located within the CNL.
This site consists of several parcels of land, both within the CNL and within its setting, that are not physically connected. The part of the site that is located within the CNL would be subject to additional policy considerations, such as whether development there would constitute major development, in the context of paragraph 190 of the NPPF.
Based on these points, it is not clear why this site has been assessed, in the HELAA, as one unit. It would have made more sense to assess the section within the CNL as a separate site. In that scenario, based on the HELAA methodology, all of the western part of the site would have been sifted out, with only the eastern part of the site remaining for further consideration.
Lower Tysoe East (section within CNL)
Lower Tysoe East is located to the east of the hamlet of Lower Tysoe. Lower Tysoe doesn’t have a defined settlement boundary, presumably because it is too small, whereas Middle / Upper Tysoe does. The only built development within Lower Tysoe East is Hopkins Farm, which is on the eastern edge of the hamlet of Lower Tysoe.
The proposed scale of development, both in terms of area (ha) and potential number of dwellings and would be completely inappropriate in the CNL. The scale of the Lower Tysoe East section would also be completely disproportionate in relation to the adjacent hamlet of Lower Tysoe, which lies outside the CNL, and to the amount of housing in Tysoe Parish as a whole.
Nearly all of the existing built development at Tysoe is located outside the CNL and only a tiny section of the settlement boundary extends into the CNL. As such, housing needs associated with Tysoe arise outside the CNL boundary. Government guidance makes it clear that National Landscapes ‘are unlikely to be suitable areas for accommodating unmet needs from adjoining (non-designated) areas’.162 In other words, the CNL should not be expected to accommodate housing needs relating to Tysoe given that these needs arise outside of the CNL.
Development in the CNL section would have a significant adverse effect on:
• views from the public rights of way (PROW) that cross the CNL section of the site, including the Centenary Way;
• westward looking views from the more elevated PROW on the escarpment, to the east of the site, including the Centenary Way;
• eastward looking views, towards the escarpment from Tysoe Road and from the PROW in the vicinity of Lower Tysoe.
The CNL section would mainly overlap with Landscape Character Type (LCT) 19 (Unwooded Vale), specifically Landscape Character Area 19E (Unwooded Vale - Vale of Feldon Fringe).163 The eastern fringe of the site, approximately above the 140m contour line, would overlap with LCT 2 (Escarpment), specifically Landscape Character Area 2G (Escarpment - Edge Hill).164 The allocation would also come within approximately 200m of LCT 7 (High Wold).165
The CNL Landscape Strategy & Guidelines for LCT 19 states that the Unwooded Vale is a sparsely settled and deeply rural landscape type, is highly sensitive to change and is not currently associated with development. It adds that Vale landscapes bordering upland areas with wide vantage points, such as the escarpment, are particularly sensitive to the effects of large scale, built development.166 Allocating the CNL section of this site would conflict with this landscape character and this landscape sensitivity.
The Cotswold escarpment, including views from and to it, is one of the ‘special qualities’ of the CNL. The dramatic panoramic views that are experienced from the escarpment are also one of the key features / characteristics of LCT 2 (Escarpment). Allocating CNL section of the site would affect these views. It would also directly affect the escarpment if development extended into LCT 2.
LCT 7 (High Wold) lies approximately 200m east of the eastern boundary of the CNL section. The open, panoramic views that are experienced on the High Wold are one of the ‘special qualities’ of the CNL. However, views from the High Wold, towards the site, are likely to be restricted by the area of woodland that runs along the upper slopes of the escarpment.
Lower Tysoe West & North (in setting of CNL)
As indicated above, the section of RefID 544 that lies outside of the CNL (i.e. Lower Tysoe West & North) is the same as the whole of RefID 571. This section includes three contiguous parcels of land to the north of the hamlet of Lower Tysoe (Lower Tysoe North) and a separate parcel of land to the west of Middle Tysoe (Lower Tysoe West), both of which come within approximately 280m of the CNL boundary.
Allocating the parcels of land north of Lower Tysoe would extend built development up to 2km northwards from the edge of existing built development at Lower Tysoe, whereas built development at Lower Tysoe currently only extends approximately 500m south to north and approximately 800m west to east. Lower Tysoe is mainly orientated in a west-east direction, whereas development on these parcels of land would be orientated in a south-north direction (i.e. perpendicular to the existing settlement pattern).
The large parcel of land to the west of Middle Tysoe would extend built development up to 1.5km north-west of the edge of built development at Middle Tysoe, whereas built development at Middle Tysoe currently only extends approximately 300m in a south-east to north-west direction. Middle Tysoe is mainly orientated in a south-west to north-east direction whereas development on this parcel of land would be orientated in a south-east to north-west direction (i.e. perpendicular to the existing settlement pattern).
The extent to which this section of the site would be completely disproportionate to the existing settlements of Middle / Upper Tysoe and Lower Tysoe and the extent to which it would deviate from the existing settlement pattern would be clearly visible from the CNL. This would include views from PROW on the Cotswold escarpment, including the Centenary Way. Views from the escarpment are one of the ‘special qualities’ of the CNL. Allocating this site would have a significant adverse effect on these views and on this special quality.
Total site
In addition to the impacts outlined above, allocating this site, both in its entirety and in its separate sections, would significantly increase the number of traffic movements generated in Tysoe parish. Given that Lower, Middle and Upper Tysoe are located on a minor road, which is unlikely to experience a significant amount of through traffic, it is highly likely that the allocation would significantly increase traffic movements on local roads within - and along the boundary of - the CNL. As outlined in the Board’s Tranquillity Position Statement, an increase of 10% or more should be considered significant and is likely have a significant adverse effect on the tranquillity of the CNL in this locality. This tranquillity is one of the ‘special qualities’ of the CNL.167
Development of this scale could also have a significant adverse effect on the dark skies of the CNL, which are one of the CNL’s ‘special qualities’. The map below shows that Tysoe is already affected by light pollution to some degree, with the effects of this light pollution extending into the CNL. Allowing up to a seven-fold increase in the number of dwellings at Tysoe would make this light pollution much worse. Recommendations
We recommend that the allocation, as currently proposed, should not be taken forward for further consideration. This applies to the site both in its entirety and in the context of the separate sections within it.
RefID 571: Tysoe North - Herberts Farm - Land to the north of Middle Tysoe (additional information)
This appears to be the same as RefID 544, except that RefID 571 doesn’t include the section of RefID 544 that is located within the CNL.
Please refer to our comments on site RefID 544, above.
RefID 830: Herbert’s Farm, Saddledon Street, Tysoe (additional information)
This site is located within the settlement boundary of Upper / Middle Tysoe. Most of the site is already identified as a strategic reserve site in the Tysoe Neighbourhood Plan, with potential for future residential development of up to 16 houses.168 Presumably, this fact will be referenced, in some way, in the Local Plan.
RefID 865: Land to the West of Sandpits Road (additional information)
This site is located within the settlement boundary of Upper / Middle Tysoe. The site is already allocated in the Tysoe Neighbourhood Plan, with potential for future residential development of up to 16 houses.169 Presumably, this fact will be referenced, in some way, in the Local Plan.
168 Tysoe
RefID 323: Land to South of Middleton Close, Upper Tysoe (additional information)
This site is located entirely within the CNL. All of the existing built development at Middle / Upper Tysoe is located outside the CNL and only a tiny section of the settlement boundary extends into the CNL. As such, housing needs associated with Tysoe arise outside the settlement boundary. Government guidance makes it clear that National Landscapes ‘are unlikely to be suitable areas for accommodating unmet needs from adjoining (non-designated) areas’.170 In other words, the CNL should not be expected to accommodate housing needs relating to Middle / Upper Tysoe given that these needs arise outside of the CNL.
Extending development, eastwards, into the CNL would not reflect the (historic) settlement character and form.
Conclusions
We recommend that:
• RefID 865 should be retained as an allocated site in the Tysoe Neighbourhood Plan - this should be referred to in the Local Plan in some way;171 we recommend that the Neighbourhood Plan figure of 13 dwellings should be used (rather than the indicative capacity of 19 dwellings).
• Ref ID 830 should be retained as a strategic reserve site in the Tysoe Neighbourhood Plan - this should be referred to in the Local Plan in some way; we recommend that the Neighbourhood Plan figure of 16 dwellings should be used (rather than the indicative capacity of 32 dwellings).
In addition to these two sites, the Neighbourhood Plan allocates an additional site for two dwellings. So, in total, the Neighbourhood Plan already makes provision for 31 dwellings. This represents a 6% increase in the number of dwellings in Tysoe parish, compared to the 2021 census baseline. This already slightly exceeds the Board’s 5% ‘rule of thumb’ threshold for proportionality. As such, we recommend that now additional housing should be allocated. However, we acknowledge that the Neighbourhood Plan only runs to 2031, whereas the Local Plan runs to 2050. We also acknowledge that Tysoe is a Category 2 Local Service Village. Therefore, if there were circumstances that merited a higher level of housing provision, the following sites potentially merit further consideration:
• RefID 296.
• RefID 24 (subject to the mitigation measures that we have recommended).
All of the other Tysoe sites should be sifted out and not given further consideration.

Yes

ID sylw: 107289

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Cotswolds National Landscape Board

RefID 688: Land north of Mollington Lane, Warmington, Banbury, OX17 1BS (additional information)
The vast majority of built development at Warmington (and most of the settlement boundary and conservation area) is located within the CNL. As such, we consider Warmington to be a CNL settlement. However, site RefID 688, itself, is located outside of - but adjacent to - the CNL boundary.
The site is located on relatively flat land on the northern edge of Warmington, which, in effect, is an extension of Landscape Character Type (LCT) 19 (Unwooded Vale),176 whereas most of the village of Warmington slopes down the Cotswold escarpment (LCT 2)177. This site itself is undeveloped but there is existing development on its west, south and east side. The northern boundary of the site appears to be well vegetated, although the vegetation is quite gappy (being primarily trees rather than hedgerow).
The site does not appear to be overlooked from public rights of way (PROW) on the escarpment. However, a PROW footpath crosses the site itself. This PROW carries both the Macmillan Way and the Battlefields Trail. Development on the site is likely to adversely affect views from this section of footpath, including views looking southwards towards the escarpment. To help reduce potential impacts on the views towards the escarpment we recommend that built development should not extend south of the PROW.
Conclusions
The indicative capacity of RefID 688 far exceeds the Board’s 5% ‘rule of thumb’ threshold for proportionality. However: •
the site would not be overlooked from PROW on the escarpment;
• it is not within the CNL (so this increase would not constitute major development in the context of paragraph 190 of the NPPF);
• the area is only slightly above the 5% threshold;
• as outlined above, the site would potentially be suitable in other regards.
If housing was provided at a lower density than the Local Plan indicative capacity, this site would potentially merit further consideration subject to the following mitigation measures:
• development should not extend south of the PROW that crosses the site;
• planting of a hedgerow on the northern boundary.

Yes

ID sylw: 107292

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Cotswolds National Landscape Board

Land at Long Marston (inc. Long Marston Airfield)
Context
The largest site in the Long Marston area is the potential new settlement, E1, which is referred to in the Preferred Options document as ‘Long Marston Airfield’ and in the interactive map as ‘Land at Long Marston’. In this assessment we will use the name ‘Long Marston Airfield’. This site would cover approximately 771ha and would extend up to approximately 5km from south to north and approximately 2.5km from west to east. The south east corner of the site is adjacent to the CNL. The new settlement has an indicative capacity of nearly 10,000 dwellings.
The new settlement overlaps with multiple sites including, from south to north:
•
RefID 141: Land at Meon Vale / Land to South of Station Road; 190ha (including the existing settlement at Meon Vale and the Rail Innovation Centre, the latter of which is identified as a ‘Major Investment Centre’); identified as a ‘Priority Area 1’.
•
RefID 146: Land to North of Station Road; 128ha (mostly undeveloped at present).
•
Ref ID 310: Long Marston Airfield; 169ha (which doesn’t include the south east corner of the airfield which has already been developed for housing); identified as a ‘Major Investment Site’.
•
RefID 333: North of Long Marston Airfield; 137ha (mostly undeveloped at present);
•
multiple sites to the east of the B4632, east and north-east of Long Marston Airfield (mostly undeveloped at present).
The only part of the proposed new settlement area that currently has a significant amount of built development is the Meon Vale part of the site (approximately 190ha). A new settlement of 771ha would be a 306% increase compared to this baseline, or a four-fold increase.
In addition to the area covered by the proposed new settlement, there are also sites proposed at Long Marston and at Quinton, which, if all were allocated, would significantly increase the size of these settlements in their own right and would add to the overall scale of development as seen from the CNL.
Assessment
The south east corner of the proposed new settlement is adjacent to the CNL boundary and most of it, upper to the north end of Long Marston airfield lies within the CNL 3km buffer zone. When issues such as potential increases in traffic movements are factored in, it could be argued that the whole of the settlement would be within the setting of the CNL.
With this in mind, it is essential to consider the potential impact of the new settlement (and / or its component sites) on the natural beauty of the CNL.
In this regard, it is worth noting that the Sustainability Appraisal states that:
•
New Settlement E1 is identified as the worst performing new settlement against landscape. New Settlement E1 is likely to result in adverse impacts on the local landscape character, views from the PRoW network and coalescence. Additionally, New Settlement E1 is likely to result in significant adverse impacts on the Cotswold National Landscape and its setting, which is located 45m from the new settlement.180 (N.B. Underlining added for emphasis).
The potential impacts on the CNL are discussed in more detail below.
Impacts on the scenic beauty of the CNL (including views from Meon Hill)
Meon Hill is located within Landscape Character Type (LCT) 1 (Escarpment Outliers), specifically Landscape Character Area LCT 1F (Escarpment Outliers - Meon and Ebrington Hills).181 One of the key features / characteristics of LCT 1 is the ‘dramatic panoramic views’ from the escarpment outliers, including Meon Hill. A Public Right of Way (PROW) footpath runs around the northern and western sides of Meon Hill, with the Heart of England Way, Monarch’s Way and Centenary Way using this PROW. Therefore, a key consideration should be the impact of the new settlement (and / or its component sites) on views from this PROW.
The New Settlement Methodology includes consideration of landscape sensitivity.182 If a proposed new settlement includes ‘landscape descriptor units’ (LDUs) with ‘very high’ or ‘high’ visual sensitivity, it is classed as ‘red’ if it includes LDUs with ‘moderate’ visual sensitivity it is classed as ‘amber’. The proposed new settlement E1 is classed as being ‘amber’, in this regard. Given that the settlement would be overlooked from PROW on Meon Hill and that the panoramic views that would be experienced from these PROW are one of the key features / characteristics of LCT1, we do not consider that the ‘amber’ rating for landscape sensitivity is appropriate. We consider that a ‘red’ rating would be more appropriate.
We acknowledge that the part of the proposed new settlement that is closest to the CNL, Meon Vale, is already developed. This existing development would be the most dominant aspect of the new settlement in views from PROW on the north-west side of Meon Hill (i.e. from the Heart of England Way). The magnitude of change in these views, resulting from the additional development in the new settlement, would be relatively limited (but not necessarily negligible).
New development in the new settlement would be further away from the CNL (approximately 1.3km, or more, from the PROW on Meon Hill). However, the existing development at Long Marston Airfield, for example, is clearly visible from PROW on the north-east side of Meon Hill (i.e. from the Monarch’s Way / Centenary Way), albeit beyond the existing built development at Quinton. Additional development at Long Marston Arfield would be clearly discernible in these views.
The sheer scale of what is being proposed means that the new settlement is likely to be more visually prominent, in views from the CNL, than the current baseline. As such, the magnitude of change in these views is likely to be at least ‘small adverse’ and not negligible. When combined with the ‘high’ value of the visual receptors on these PROW, this would result in at least a ‘moderate adverse’ visual effect.
Impacts on views from the CNL could potentially be moderated, to some degree, by requiring appropriate landscape mitigation measures, including hedgerow planting and tree planting, at the southern and eastern boundaries of the settlement. Landscape mitigation measures should also be undertaken within each site and between each site. For example, it may be appropriate to have tree belts between: RefID 141 and RefID 146; Ref ID 146 and RefID 310; and RefID 310 and RefID 333. This would help to ‘break up’ the mass of development that would be perceived in views from the PROW on Meon Hill.
Impact on cultural heritage of CNL
Another consideration relevant to Meon Hill is the potential impact of the proposed new settlement (and / or its component sites) on the setting of hillfort on top of Meon Hill, which is a scheduled monument. This impact will need to be assessed.
Impacts on the relative tranquillity of the CNL
The scale of the proposed new settlement (and / or its component sites) is likely to result in a significant increase in the number of traffic movements generated in this locality, even factoring in the potential provision of a new train station at Long Marston and the reopening of the Stratford-Honeybourne train line. This could significantly increase the number of traffic movements on roads within the CNL and along its boundary.
The Board’s Tranquillity Position Statement states that an increase in traffic movements of 10% or more is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the relative tranquillity of the CNL, which is one of the CNL’s ‘special qualities’.183 Given the scale of the proposed development is it quite likely that this threshold would be exceeded.
This is potentially the most significant issue with regards to potential impacts on the natural beauty of the CNL. The dark skies of the CNL are one of the area’s ‘special qualities’. The existing development at Meon Vale already impacts on the dark skies of the CNL to some degree, as shown in the map below. The scale of the proposed new settlement (and / or its component sites, including the Rail Innovation Centre) could significantly exacerbate this issue.
To help address this issue, lighting should be avoided where possible and, where lighting is installed, this should comply with best practice standards. Consideration should also be given to reducing, or removing, existing sources of lighting, such as at the roundabout on the south-east corner of the Meon Vale development.
Conclusions
Overall, we consider that New Settlement E1, when considered in its entirety, is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the natural beauty of the CNL, compared to the current baseline, particularly with regards to the impact of increased traffic movements on roads through - and along the boundary of - the CNL. We also consider that there would be adverse effects in relation to:
•
the scenic beauty of the CNL, particularly with regards to impacts on views from the public rights of way on Meon Hill;
•
the setting of the scheduled monument on Meon Hill (a multivallate hillfort);
•
the dark skies of the CNL.
On this basis, we recommend that New Settlement E1 should not be allocated, at least not in its entirety.
We acknowledge that there is likely to be further development at Meon Vale, including at the Rail Innovation Centre. We also acknowledge that Long Marston Airfield (as defined by the existing settlement boundary) is already allocated as a new settlement in Stratford-on-Avon District’s adopted Core Strategy.184 As such, our main recommendation for these two sites is to provide appropriate / additional landscape mitigation along the southern and eastern boundaries of each site and including trees and hedgerows. If necessary, this should include a tree belt, rather than a small number of individual trees. Consideration should also be given to appropriate landscape mitigation within the sites, to reduce the mass of development that would be perceived in views from the CNL.
Elsewhere within the boundary of the proposed New Settlement E1, we recommend that there should be no built development and no coalescence between Meon Vale and Long Marston Airfield. Development should also be avoided that would create a sense of coalescence with Lower Quinton and / or Upper Quinton. Ideally, development should not extend eastwards of the B4632 (Campden Road) or northwards of Long Marston Airfield. The total quantum of development within the boundary of proposed New Settlement E1 should be at a level where the resulting increase in traffic movements on roads through - and along the boundary of - the CNL would not exceed 10%.
Measures should also be taken to reduce existing sources of lighting, including at the roundabout on the south-east corner of the Meon Vale site.

Yes

ID sylw: 107293

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Cotswolds National Landscape Board

Lower Quinton
For context, it is worth noting that the Quinton Neighbourhood Plan includes a map of land parcels / sites adjacent to Quinton that are considered to be potentially deliverable (with potentially deliverable sites shaded amber and cross hatched).186
Approximately 75% of the hamlet of Upper Quinton, including the heart of the hamlet, at The Green, is located within the CNL. As such, we consider Upper Quinton to be a CNL settlement. The whole of the village of Lower Quinton is located outside of the CNL but is still within the setting of the CNL. At present, the minimum gap between the settlement boundaries of Upper and Lower Quinton is approximately 130m, on the west side of Goose Lane.
Summary of Quinton sites
There are six sites in consideration in the vicinity of Upper and Lower Quinton:
•
RefID 151: Land to the North of Tailor’s Lane; 4.21ha (indicative capacity = 138 dwellings).
•
RefID 410: Land East of Goose Lane; 1.17ha (indicative capacity = 38 dwellings).
•
RefID 414: Lower Quinton Garage; 2.05ha (indicative capacity = 67 dwellings).
•
RefID 431: Land at Goose Lane; 9.05ha (indicative capacity = 298 dwellings).
•
RefID508: Land North of Main Road; 11.77ha (indicative capacity = 235 dwellings).
• RefID 822: East of Goose Lane; 1.72ha (indicative capacity = 56 dwellings).
None of the sites are located within the CNL but two (RefID 151 and RefID 414) are adjacent to the CNL boundary and all the sites are within the setting of the CNL.
A key consideration for these sites is the extent to which they would impact on views from public rights of way (PROW) within the CNL, particularly the Heart of England Way, Monarch’s Way and Centenary Way on the norther slopes of Meon Hill.
RefID 151: Land to the North of Tailor’s Lane
RefID 151 is adjacent to the CNL. It would form an extension to Upper Quinton and, at 4.21ha in size, would increase the size of the settlement by approximately 50%, compared to the baseline area of approximately 8.52ha. Given that Upper Quinton is a CNL settlement, we consider that it would be appropriate to apply the 5% ‘rule of thumb’ threshold for proportionality. The site would be 10 times larger than this threshold.
In conjunction with RefID 414, it would increase the size of the settlement of Upper Quinton by approximately 75%. This would be 15 times larger than the 5% ‘rule of thumb’ threshold for proportionality.
The settlement boundary of Upper Quinton currently extends approximately 150m north of Tailor’s Lane. RefID 151 would extend the settlement boundary a further 180m northwards. It would bring the northern limit of the settlement boundary of Upper Quinton as far north as the southern limit of the settlement boundary of Lower Quinton.
Even if the site didn’t extend beyond the current northern limit of built development for Upper Quinton, it would still cover 2ha, which would be a 23% increase compared to the current settlement area baseline of 8.5ha. This is five times larger than the 5% ‘rule of thumb’ threshold for proportionality.
In conjunction with RefID 431 it would result in the coalescence of Upper and Lower Quinton.
In the Quinton Neighbourhood Plan the southern half of the site is shown as not being potentially deliverable and the northern half of the site is not considered in this regard.187
The Neighbourhood Plan also shows that the entire site is ‘ridge and furrow’.188 This ridge and furrow land is contiguous with - and is a continuation of - the ridge and furrow land in the CNL. This provided a continuity in landscape character between the CNL and the adjacent land.
In north-facing views from the Heart of England Way, west of Upper Quinton, there is currently an undeveloped gap of approximately 815m between the Heart of England Way and built development at Lower Quinton. However, RefID 151 would reduce this undeveloped gap to just 330m. Allocating the site would, therefore, have a significant adverse impact on these views.
RefID 410: Land East of Goose Lane
Ref ID 410 is on the south-east side of Lower Quinton, south of - and adjacent to - RefID 822. It would bring the built development of Lower Quinton a further 60m south than RefID 822, although it would not extend the southern limit of built development on the opposite side of Goose Lane.
In the Quinton Neighbourhood Plan, the site was identified as not being potentially deliverable.
The site is clearly visible in views from the Monarch’s Way / Centenary Way on Meon Hill, to the east of Upper Quinton. However, in these views, the site is in front of existing, recently built development. It would be more prominent in these views than RefID 822. As such, it would be more appropriate to develop RefID 822, which is already a reserve site in the Quinton Neighbourhood Plan.
The southern edge of the site does not follow an existing field boundary. As such, it is very exposed in views from the CNL. If the site was to be allocated or development was to be permitted, a new hedgerow should be planted along the southern boundary together with some additional tree planting along this boundary.
Overall, compared to the current baseline, we consider that allocating the site would harm the natural beauty of the CNL, particularly with regards to impacts on views from the CNL. However, if Ref ID 822 was to be allocated / developed first, the impact on views from the CNL would be more limited.
RefID 414: Lower Quinton Garage
RefID 414 is on the boundary of the CNL. It would be an extension to Upper Quinton. At 2.05ha in size, it would increase the size of the settlement by approximately 24%, compared to the current baseline of 8.5ha. Given that Upper Quinton is a CNL settlement, we consider that it would be appropriate to apply the 5% ‘rule of thumb’ threshold for proportionality. An increase of 8.5ha would be five times larger than the 5% ‘rule of thumb’ threshold for proportionality.
There is already some built development on site for an agricultural services company. This includes a large barn-type structure. In addition, there is currently a lot of machinery and vehicles on site, which creates a sense of visual clutter, for example, when viewed from the Monarch’s Way / Centenary Way, within the CNL on Meon Hill.
Well-designed housing could potentially be less intrusive, in these views, than the existing use of the site. However, the main part of the site is not contiguous with the existing settlement of Upper Quinton, being approximately 30m from the current settlement boundary. This gap is clearly visible in views from the Monarch’s Way / Centenary Way. Developing the site for housing would also be at odds with the existing (and historic) settlement pattern at Upper Quinton, which is focussed around Hill Lane and Tailor’s Lane.
On balance, we consider that allocating the site would harm the natural beauty of the CNL, particularly in relation to impacts on views from the CNL.
RefID 431: Land at Goose Lane
Allocating the whole of RefID 431 would result in the coalescence of Upper and Lower Quinton. This would result in Upper Quinton losing its character as a hamlet within the CNL and would, instead, create a perception of urban sprawl spreading up to and into the CNL.
When viewed from PROW within the CNL, particularly the Monarch’s Way, on Meon Hill, to the west of Upper Quinton, the southern half of the site can be seen quite clearly whereas the western part of the northern half is well screened by an existing hedgerow. Development on the northern half of the site would be viewed in the context of the existing built development immediately to the north, and could potentially be accommodated without harming the natural beauty of the CNL. In contrast, development on the southern half would be more prominent in these views and is likely to harm the natural beauty of the CNL.
The Quinton Neighbourhood Plan (Figure 11) identifies that the northern half of the site would be potentially deliverable. We would agree with this conclusion, providing that a robust hedgerow, with an additional tree planting, was planted along the full length of the southern edge of northern half of the site. Ideally, development should not extend further south than the adjacent built development. It should certainly not extend further south than the current southern limit of built development in Upper Quinton (i.e. Meon Medical Centre).
RefID508: Land North of Main Road
RefID 508 is on the north side of Lower Quinton (i.e. on the opposite side of Lower Quinton from the CNL). It is approximately 680m from the CNL boundary and approximately 1.3km from elevated views on PROW within the CNL.
The site would be partially visible in views from the PROW to the south east of Upper Quinton (i.e. Monarch’s Way / Centenary) but the magnitude of change in these views is likely to be limited because of the intervening, built development. The site would be less discernible in views from the PROW to the south west of Upper Quinton (i.e. the Heart of England Way). Any potential impacts could be minimised by ensuring that the southern boundary of the site is well vegetated (i.e. hedgerow and trees).
Overall, we consider that allocating this site would not adversely affect the natural beauty of the CNL, including views from the CNL.
RefID 822: East of Goose Lane
RefID is located on the south-east side of Lower Quinton, immediately to the south of some relatively recent built development. In the Quinton Neighbourhood Plan, the site is identified as being potentially deliverable and is allocated as a Reserve Housing Site, with the potential for future residential development of up to 30 dwellings (Policy HO.2).189 Policy HO.2 specifies that the site will only be released during the plan period (i.e. before 2031) if it can be demonstrated, through the submission of evidence, that there is an identified need for its early release. Policy HO.2 also specifies that an updated landscape sensitivity assessment should be provided as part of any future planning application for the reserve site, paying specific attention to the proximity of the CNL.
The existing built development, north of RefID 822, comes within approximately 1km of elevated views on PROW in the CNL (specifically the Monarch’s Way / Centenary Way) south east of Upper Quinton). Allocating RefID 822 would bring built development within approximately 900m of these views. However, in these views, development on the site would be seen in the context of the adjacent built development to the north. The field is also partly screened by an existing hedgerow on its southern boundary. As such, the magnitude of change in these views would be limited, possibly negligible. Potential impacts could be further mitigated by planting trees along the hedgerow on the southern boundary.
Conclusions
A clear gap should be retained between Upper and Lower Quinton to avoid coalescence between the two settlements. Ideally, development at Lower Quinton should not extend further south than the current southern limit of built development and development at Upper Quinton should not extend further north than the current northern limit of built development.
It is important that Upper Quinton should retain its character as a hamlet and not expand to the extent that it would be considered a settlement. Further consideration should be given to RefID 822 as it is already identified as a Reserve Housing Site (and as being potentially deliverable) in the Quinton Neighbourhood Plan.190 At the very least, reference should be made to this fact in the Local Plan. Adverse impacts on views from the CNL are likely to be minimal.
The Neighbourhood Plan covers the period 2011-2031, whereas the Local Plan would cover the period up to 2050. As such, we acknowledge that additional housing may be required in Lower Quinton during the Plan period.
If further housing is required, we consider that the following sites should potentially be given further consideration:
•
RefID 431 (northern half)
•
RefID 508
We recommend that the following sites should be sifted out and not given further consideration:
•
RefID 151.
•
RefID 410 (at least until RefID 822 has been developed).
•
RefID 414.
•
RefID 431 (southern half)
When allocating sites at Lower Quinton, consideration should still be given to whether the allocations, both individually and collectively, would be proportionate to the existing settlement. As outlined above, the Board applies a 5% rule of thumb threshold for proportionality for settlements within and directly adjacent to the CNL. However, given that Lower Quinton is not directly adjacent to the CNL boundary and given that it is a Category 1 Local Service Village, a higher threshold may be appropriate (e.g. 10%). Not exceeding this threshold would help to ensure that, in views from the CNL, there does not appear to be a significant increase in the scale and extent of built development at Lower Quinton.
Finally, we have some concerns regarding the Priority Area zoning that overlaps with this part of the CNL, including Upper Quinton. Upper Quinton lies within:
•
the Priority Area 2 ‘buffer’ zone relating to Meon Vale;
•
the Priority Area 3 zone relating to Lower Quinton.
We acknowledge that the zoning is just based on set distances from particular locations. However, in the context of the CNL, it should be more nuanced than this. Ideally, the CNL, including Upper Quinton, should be excluded from these Priority Area zones. There are two main reasons for this, as outlined below.
Firstly, national planning policy requires the scale and extent of development in National Landscapes to be limited. Inclusion within the Priority Area zones risks proposals being put forward, within and / or directly adjacent to, the CNL that would conflict with this policy requirement.
Secondly, national Planning Practice Guidance states that National Landscapes ‘are unlikely to be suitable areas for accommodating unmet needs from adjoining (non-designated) areas’.191 Policy CE15 of the CNL Management Plan expands on this by stating that ‘in the context of the CNL, this includes unmet needs relating to adjacent urban areas’.192 As such, the CNL, including Upper Quinton, should not be expected to accommodate growth relating primarily to Meon Vale / Long Marston and Lower Quinton. Growth at Lower Quinton should also take into account potential impacts on views from the CNL and potential increases in traffic movements on roads through - and along the boundary of - the CNL.

Yes

ID sylw: 107294

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Cotswolds National Landscape Board

Shipston on Stour
Summary of Shipston on Stour sites
In the draft Local Plan, Shipston on Stour is identified as:
•
a small town;
•
a ‘Priority Area 1’ location, with a ‘Priority Area 2’ buffer;
•
a Strategic Growth Location (with all of the potential allocations being collectively classed as Strategic Growth Location SG17 (Shipston on Stour Group)).
There are approximately 14 sites in consideration at Shipston on Stour. From a CNL perspective, the largest and most significant sites are Ref ID 148 and Ref ID 747, on the east side of Shipston on Stour and within the CNL 3km buffer.
•
Ref ID 148: Land at Fell Mill Farm, Shipston; 33.91ha (indicative capacity = 678 dwellings).
•
Ref ID 747: Land at Leasow Farm; 47.45ha (indicative capacity = 909).
The other sites are smaller in scale and are mostly located on the west side of CNL, outside the CNL 3km buffer (and on the opposite side of the town from the closest part of the CNL), although RefID 689 protrudes incongruously into the open countryside.
Potential impacts on the natural beauty of the CNL
Sustainability appraisal
The Sustainability Appraisal states:
•
The Shipston-on-Stour SGL is likely to impact long-reaching views from the Cotswolds National Landscape. The closest point to of the SGL in the east lies 1.6km from the National Landscape, whilst the southernmost point of the SGL is located approximately 3.2km from the designation. Ebrington Hill is the tallest hill in the Plan area which lies in the south west of the Stratford-on-Avon District with an elevation of 261m. The SGLs in proximity to Ebrington Hill, most namely Shipston-on-Stour, have the potential to impact views from the peak. However, it is worth noting that Shipston-on-Stour is surrounded by built form. Overall, a minor negative impact is expected for Shipston-on-Stour on landscape.194
RefID 148 and RefID747
The largest sites within SGL 17 and, therefore, the sites that are likely to be the most visually intrusive, with regards to views from the CNL, are sites RefID 148 and RefID 747, on the eastern side of Shipston-on-Stour, which, together, cover 81ha.
RefID 747comes within approximately 1.7km of the CNL boundary and within approximately 2km of elevated views from public rights of way (PROW) on the western slopes of Brailes Hill, within the CNL. The existing settlement boundary on the west side of Ref ID 747 is approximately 2.7km from the CNL boundary so RefID 747 would bring built development 1km closer to the CNL (or 37% closer).
RefID 148 comes within approximately 2.2km of the CNL boundary and within approximately 2.5km of elevated views from PROW on the western slopes of Brailes Hill, within the CNL. The existing settlement boundary on the west side of RefID148 is approximately 2.8km from the CNL boundary so RefID 148 would bring built development approximately 600m closer to the CNL (or 21% closer).
Brailes Hill is located within Landscape Character Type (LCT) 1 - Escarpment Outliers.195 More specifically, it is located within Landscape Character Area 1G (Escarpment Outliers - Brailes Hill and Castle Hill). One of the key features of LCT 1 is the ‘dramatic panoramic views from upper slopes’. Therefore, an important consideration, with regards to the Shipston on Stour sites (particularly RefID 148 and RefID 747) is the potential impact on these panoramic views from Brailes Hill.
The scale and extent of RefID 148 and RefID 747, including the extent to which they extend built development towards the CNL, means that development on these sites is likely to be a prominent feature in views from PROW on Brailes Hill. This development would significantly increase the prominence of Shipston on Stour in these views. However, there are a couple of small hills to the east of the site, including Borough Hill, which might help to reduce the visual impact of these sites.
RefID 747 could potentially also have an adverse impact on views looking towards the CNL, for example with regards to views from Fell Mill Lane, which passes through the site and which forms part of National Cycle Route 48.
It is worth noting that the western section of these two sites is identified as an ‘area of restraint’ in the adopted Core Strategy on the basis that makes an important contribution to the character of the settlement.196 Parts of the two sites are also within the floodplain, which the Core Strategy identifies as being ‘an overriding constraint to development’.197 These constraints further restrict the scope for development on these two sites.
RefID 689
RefID 689, which protrudes incongruously into the open countryside on the north side of Shipston-on-Stour, could also have an adverse impact on views from the CNL.
Traffic movements / tranquillity
Given the scale of development that is being considered at Shipston on Stour, there is likely to be a significant increase in the number of traffic movements generated in Shipston. This, in turn, could potentially increase the number of traffic movements on roads within - and along the boundary of the CNL (to the east, west and south of Shipston on Stour). As outlined in the Board’s Tranquillity Position Statement (Section 4.5), we consider that an increase in traffic movements of more than 10% would be significant and would adversely affect the relative tranquillity of the CNL.
Conclusions
We recommend that RefID 148 and RefID 747 should not be taken forward, at least not to their full extent.
If any development is allocated on RefID 747, we recommend that the site boundary should not extend further east / south-east than Fell Mill Lane, where it passes through the site. This would help to prevent development extending over the brow / ridge of Borough Hill and becoming more visible in views from the CNL. It would also help to avoid adverse impacts on views from Fell Mill Lane towards the CNL.
For both sites, development should also not extend into the ‘area of restraint’ or into the floodplain.
Ideally, RefID 689 should also not be taken forward.
The other sites within SGL 17 would potentially be acceptable, from a CNL perspective, as they are smaller in scale and more in keeping with the existing settlement pattern
We recommend that further assessments should be undertaken to assess the visual impacts of RefID 148, Ref ID 689 RefID 747 on views from the CNL. We also recommend that an assessment should be undertaken of the likely increase in traffic movements that would result from the allocations at Shipston, including on roads within - and along the boundary of - the CNL.

Yes

ID sylw: 107295

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Cotswolds National Landscape Board

Oxhill
Summary of Oxhill sites
Oxhill is located approximately 2km from the boundary of the CNL. As such, it lies within the CNL 3km buffer zone, within which consideration should be given to potential impacts on the natural beauty of the CNL (for example, potential impacts on views from the CNL).
The Preferred Options document identifies three sites for further consideration:
•
RefID 29: Land adjacent to Hares Breath, Whatcote Road, Oxhill (2.11ha).
•
RefID 663: Land off Green Lane, Oxhill (23.05ha), which includes the area covered by:
o
RefID 754: Green Lane, Oxhill (3.18ha)
RefID 663 is, therefore, by far the largest site and is the site that is most likely to impact on views from the CNL.
Assessment
RefID 663 comes within approximately 2.1km of the CNL boundary and within approximately 3km of elevated views from public rights of way (PROW), within the CNL, on the slopes of Windmill Hill. Windmill Hill is located within Landscape Character Type (LCT) 6 - Ironstone Hills and Valleys.198 More specifically, it is located within Landscape Character Area 6A - Ironstone Hills and Valleys (Whichford Hills and Valleys). One of the key features / characteristics of LCT 6 is the ‘dramatic sweeping views over wide areas of the landscape’. Therefore, a key consideration will be the extent to which the sites at Oxhill, particularly RefID 663.
The settlement boundary of Oxhill covers approximately 20ha. Ref ID 663 and RefID 29 would increase this area by 24.16ha. In other words, the area of built development would be more than doubled. As such, development on these sites could result in Oxhill becoming more prominent in views from the CNL.
However, the PROW on Windmill Hill are orientated in a south-west to north-east direction, whereas Oxhill is to the north-west of Windmill Hill. As such, the Oxhill area is not likely to be a primary focal point for users of these PROW. Also, the top of Windmill Hill is encircled by trees, limiting the views that can be experienced across the wider landscape.
Conclusions
We recommend that further assessments should be undertaken to assess the potential visual impact of RefID 663 on views from the CNL.