BASE HEADER
Preferred Options 2025
Chwilio sylwadau
Canlyniadau chwilio Catesby Estates
Chwilio o’r newyddNo
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: 107207
Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Catesby Estates
Asiant : Mr Will Whitelock
No – we are not supportive of the proposals for a two-part Plan in which only strategic sites (i.e. strategic allocations for new settlements and large scale urban extensions) are to be included in the Part 1 Plan. No timescales are provided for the preparation of the Part 2 Plan, other than it will be prepared following the adoption of the Part 1 Plan. It represents a failure of both Councils to properly grasp the difficult issues and decisions that need to be made in terms of allocating sites at the local level and delivering the development needs of South Warwickshire. The need for significant new infrastructure and facilities to support the Potential New Settlements will mean that these growth locations are unlikely to be delivered until towards the end of the Plan Period to 2050.
Yes
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: 107208
Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Catesby Estates
Asiant : Mr Will Whitelock
We are generally supportive of the Strategic Objectives, which will address the key strategic challenges and opportunities that have arisen since the Stratford on Avon Core Strategy was adopted in 2016.
There is a requirement for smaller allocations to meet the identified housing needs in the shorter term and therefore it is considered that Strategic Objective 1 will not be realised until after the adoption of the Part 2 Plan.
It is hence considered that the notion of a Part 2 Plan should be dropped and the identification of smaller sites should be included within this current Plan process.
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: 107209
Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Catesby Estates
Asiant : Mr Will Whitelock
Emerging policy must treat 2,188 dpa as a minimum figure for housing in South Warwickshire to 2050.
There will undoubtedly be challenges for neighbouring authorities to meet their own needs and hence the South Warwickshire authorities may well need to increase their housing need figure by reason of the requirement to accommodate any unmet needs.
It is hence concluded that the draft South Warwickshire Local Plan should reflect that the combined Standard Method housing figure of 2,188 dwellings per annum is only the starting point and additional housing may be required to facilitate economic growth, the delivery of affordable housing and any unmet needs from neighbouring authorities. It is considered that the delivery of housing in excess of 2,188 dwellings per annum is achievable on the basis of the housing completions identified in the Authority Monitoring Reports for both authorities.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
Do you have any comments on a specific site proposal or the HELAA results?
ID sylw: 107210
Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Catesby Estates
Asiant : Mr Will Whitelock
The site (Ref. 445 Land South of Allimore Lane, Alcester) scores poorly in the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) as it has erroneously been assessed as being located in an area with moderate contribution to Green Belt purposes. As a matter of fact, the site is not located within the Green Belt.
At Alcester, the Green Belt wraps around the settlement, but does not cover the built up area itself. Included at Appendix 3 is an extract from the Green Belt Review Stage 1 (September 2024) which has been marked up to demonstrate that Site 445 is not located in the Green Belt.
It is requested that the site assessment and scoring is updated accordingly.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 2 - Potential New Settlements?
ID sylw: 107211
Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Catesby Estates
Asiant : Mr Will Whitelock
The approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 2 broadly aligns with Paragraph 77 of the Framework.
it has not been adequately demonstrated that the Potential New Settlements will be supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities, including a genuine choice of transport modes. Opportunities for rail links to these Potential New Settlements may be challenging and therefore further information is required to demonstrate how such development can help to meet identified needs in a sustainable way.
The need for significant new infrastructure and facilities to support the Potential New Settlements will mean that these growth locations are unlikely to be delivered until towards the end of the Plan Period to 2050. Clearly, there is a requirement for smaller allocations to meet the identified housing needs in the shorter term, in accordance with Paragraph 72 of the Framework.
It is submitted that Land south of Allimore Lane, Alcester should form part of a mix of sites within the Spatial Growth Strategy to assist in meeting South Warwickshire’s identified housing need. The site is considered to be geographically sustainable and of a scale (c. 128 dwellings) that can be delivered quickly.
Yes
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: 107213
Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Catesby Estates
Asiant : Mr Will Whitelock
We support the recognition that there may be a need to look to accommodate ‘unmet need’ from the Coventry and Warwickshire Housing Market Area (HMA) and the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA. South Warwickshire sits most fully within the Coventry and Warwickshire HMA, with Warwick District most strongly related to Coventry given its shared boundary and interrelationships with the city.
However, there is no detail to comment on at this stage. The pre-amble to Draft Policy Direction 4 - Accommodating Growth Needs Arising from Outside South Warwickshire states: ‘It is yet to be established to what extent and what uses (e.g. housing and/or employment) there will be any unmet need from elsewhere within these housing market areas [Coventry and Warwickshire Housing Market Area (HMA) and the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA]. Some of this need will be met by other constituent Local Planning Authorities within both HMA’s; however, through Duty to Co-operate discussions; the Councils will commit to continually consider this need and work with those authorities on how this can be achieved.’
A number of West Midlands authorities have seen a significant increase in their Local Housing Need figure under the new Standard Method (save for Birmingham, Sandwell and Coventry). The West Midlands would be expected to deliver 29,940 dwellings per annum, a 21% increase compared to the previous method.
There will undoubtedly be challenges for neighbouring authorities to meet their own needs and hence the South Warwickshire authorities may well need to increase their housing need figure by reason of the requirement to accommodate any unmet needs.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 10- Providing the Right Tenure and Type of Homes?
ID sylw: 107214
Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Catesby Estates
Asiant : Mr Will Whitelock
We consider providing a separate affordable housing requirement for Stratford-on-Avon and Warwick Districts would be appropriate in terms of reflecting local requirements and local viability calculations. However, it is considered that the tenure and type of affordable homes sought should be determined on a site-by-site basis, based on national planning policy and best available information regarding local housing needs, site surroundings and viability considerations. Catesby Estates support a collaborative approach to identifying site-specific affordable housing requirements, including tenure and type of affordable homes to be provided on-site.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy- A- Providing the Right Size of Homes?
ID sylw: 107215
Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Catesby Estates
Asiant : Mr Will Whitelock
The supporting text to Draft Policy A makes reference to the HEDNA to support the suggestion that an NDSS policy is required. However, the HENDA does not suggest that all of the housing requirement should be NDSS compliant. The HEDNA is out of date and therefore a refreshed study should be produced to determine whether there is a need for a 100% NDSS provision, in addition to a need for M4(2) and M4(3) compliant properties. 5.4 In any event, it is unnecessary to include an M4(2) and/or M4(3) requirement in the SWLP Part 1. The Building Regulations 2010 'Access to and use of buildings' Approved document Part M already provides specific requirements for M4(2) dwellings in relation to Accessible and Adaptable Homes and M4(3)/M4 (3)(2)(a) dwellings in relation to wheelchair accessible housing. It is not necessary for this to be repeated in a development plan policy as developers are already aware of the requirement to meet these standards. It is hence concluded that reference to accessible living standards should be deleted from the draft policy.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy- B- Providing Custom and Self Building Housing Plots?
ID sylw: 107216
Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Catesby Estates
Asiant : Mr Will Whitelock
We agree with the general approach for the provision custom and self-build housing plots in order help to diversify the housing market and increase consumer choice in accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Framework.
A draft SWLP policy requirement for 5% of the developable area for large developments (100 or more dwellings) to be made available for the provision of self-build and custom-build homes, may lead to an over-supply of this housing tenure - far greater than the level of need identified on the Council’s Register for the past few years. Therefore, greater flexibility is required in the policy wording to enable a fall-back option if the Council Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Position Statement indicates that there is already a sufficient supply of plots to meet the demand for this specific type of housing.
In addition, it is considered that people wishing to commission or build their own homes may have a preference for large plots within and adjacent to smaller settlements, including small villages, as evidenced by the entries on the Council’s self-build register. Serviced plots within large housing developments may therefore be unattractive to these consumers. Further evidence is required to justify the policy approach of locating self-build plots within large development sites.
We agree with the inclusion of the fall-back option of reverting any unsold self-build plots to the developer to build, should any of these plots not be sold after an appropriate marketing period (12 months).
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction-26- Design Codes?
ID sylw: 107217
Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Catesby Estates
Asiant : Mr Will Whitelock
This approach is consistent with Paragraph 133 of the Framework. Catesby Estates intend to engage with the local community and other stakeholders through public consultation events to help influence the design of the Land South of Allimore Lane, Alcester development in support of a planning application, following the adoption of the South Warwickshire Local Plan. A site-specific design code will be developed for the Site in accordance with NPPF Paragraph 134. The accompanying Vision Document demonstrates that much work has already been undertaken into achieving a well-designed neighbourhood.
However, it is considered that the policy needs to respond to the particular individual circumstances of a site and not be overly prescriptive. There must be flexibility within the Design Codes and Local Plan policy to allow developments to come forward in circumstances where they are not strictly in accordance with all design criteria, particularly when balancing environmental or technical considerations.