Other

ID sylw: 107628

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Napton Parish Council

On balance, the approach set out in the draft plan seems reasonable, noting it is to respond to the required numbers dictated to the Council by the standard method imposed by central government. It should be ensured that growth happens in a sustainable and sensible way, with any new housing and commercial development accompanied by necessary infrastructure.

Although sites F1, F2, and F3 are near a railway, we do not believe that new railway stations between Banbury and Leamington are likely viable, economic, practical or realistic and no evidence has been provided to suggest otherwise. The effect of these sites would be to generate unacceptable road traffic towards the M40 junction.

The Southam area has already experienced excessive housing growth, and the road network is poor. The Gaydon M40 Junction has pulled far too much traffic from local roads towards a junction never intended to serve those areas calling into question SG13, SG14 and G1. Any commercial development should be true employment land and not large warehousing for imported goods.

No

ID sylw: 107629

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Napton Parish Council

We do not agree with this cluster being included in the plan as set out. Whilst broadly supporting the objectives, Southam has been the subject of disproportionate and unsustainable growth over the last 5 to 10 years and is a community without any rail access. As stated by us elsewhere in our response, growth that is overwhelmingly car and road dependent should be avoided and Southam is such a case in point. Further, there is no adequate arterial road network. Schools and healthcare have been considerably challenged here. It would be most useful if a network of cycle ways to connect villages within 4 miles such as Ufton, Long and Bishop’s Itchington, Deppers Bridge, Napton and Ladbroke could be developed. The inclusion of Wood Street carpark as a potential development site is quite unacceptable and would adversely affect the vibrancy of the town.

Other

ID sylw: 107630

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Napton Parish Council

Custom and Self Build Housing Plots
We largely agree with the approach laid out in the approach in the Draft Policy but strongly disagree with some important details that have been found problematic.

The policy should expect plots to be adjacent to the BUAB and avoid sites with multiple plots protruding into open countryside extending the BUAB.

‘Small-scale’ requires numerical guidance.

Caution should be applied with design codes. It is better to rely on reserved matter applications rather than assumed or blanket approval through a design code.

We welcome the policy to require effective re-marketing after 12 months, but question how enforceable this can be and when the ‘clock starts’. There appears to have been a history of plots being built speculatively under the guise of CSB and then finding their way into the open market. Best practice elsewhere should be benchmarked for precise wording.

Other

ID sylw: 107631

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Napton Parish Council

The comment with the draft plan regarding the number of boat dwellers in Napton is noted, derived from supporting reports. In the tight time scale of the plan detail discussion of this aspect it has not been possible to further understand the issues. However, not only are the numbers influenced by this single site but there are other sites where ostensible ‘mobile’ dwellers appear on the electoral roll. In a number of cases this suggests that immunity from enforcement may be the case and that informal accommodation of numbers of such ‘travelers’ of various types may need further explanation.

Generally speaking, we believe the experience elsewhere, it is better to avoid large traveler sites.

Yes

ID sylw: 107632

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Napton Parish Council

We broadly agree with the approach. Whilst there is Draft Policy D for Large Scale Renewables, the context against smaller scale systems and energy conservation should have more emphasis. The wind profile for Central England is not particularly promising - the National Wind Database suggests average wind speeds of 6.2m/s 45m above ground level. The equivalent figure in a western coastal area might be about 7.2m/s. Power is proportional to the cube of the wind speed, so the same installation would be about 56% more effective at the coast for these sample speeds.

Whilst it is relative, within the Districts the Arup study unsurprisingly prioritises areas of ‘hilly landscapes’ for wind generation by dint of higher windspeeds. The policy should seek to balance visual harm against energy generation rather than agricultural land classification. In this respect, single farm scale turbine masts are likely to have better balance in terms of impact rather than large scale wind farms.