Yes

ID sylw: 108629

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kiely Bros Holdings Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

Draft Policy K – Multi-Functional Sustainable Drainage Systems
6.16.
This policy is broadly supported, although the Councils are reminded that whilst NPPF §181 encourages the incorporation of sustainable drainage systems, it also recognises that this is unnecessary where there is clear evidence that this would be inappropriate. As such, the policy must make clear that there may be instances in which exceptions can be made, with SUDS not delivered providing, that there is a clear justification for this.
6.17.
Furthermore, the policy should be amended to allow for more flexibility, for example, below-ground SUDS features may be suitable in some instances, and there may be sites and schemes where it is not possible to achieve a site-wide dispersal of SUDS, as currently stipulated in the draft policy. It is noted that the NPPF provides no such requirements for SUDS.
6.18.
No justification from the Council has been provided for this policy. This may have been omitted in error, but it is imperative for the emerging policy to be fully justified to be found sound. It is considered that the policy can be adequately justified, subject to the amendments recommended above.

Yes

ID sylw: 108630

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kiely Bros Holdings Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

Policy Direction 25 – Strategic Design Principles
7.1.
The delivery of high quality design is supported, and it is considered that the overarching strategic design principles align with national policy.
7.2.
The policy direction refers to 20-minute neighbourhoods, which the SA notes would result in positive impacts for many of the SA Objectives. The policy should clearly define the principles of such neighbourhoods. This may be based on the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA)’s 20-minute Neighbourhoods guidance (March 2021). It will also be necessary to clarify that it may not be possible for all developments, particularly in the more rural locations across the district, to meet these principles. Indeed, 20-minute neighbourhoods are typically associated with urban areas - existing towns, urban extensions, and new settlements. It is easier to deliver 20-minute neighbourhoods by providing facilities and services within denser areas, and high densities may not be appropriate for all sites, particularly in rural settlements (NPPF §130), which suggests that local character should be taken into account when considering the most appropriate density for a site, and where rural needs with regards to housing should be considered, as well as ways in which the vitality of villages can be enhanced (NPPF §§182 and 183).
7.3.
The TCPA’s guidance, in Section 4.3, acknowledges the challenges of implementing 20-minute neighbourhoods in rural areas, noting that there are two approaches:
•
Focus on there being a complete and compact 20-minute neighbourhood within the wider area, such as in a local market town, which residents in comparatively smaller settlements can travel to.
•
Create a network of villages that collectively provide what most people need for their daily lives. This approach aligns with NPPF §83, which acknowledges that development in one village may support services in a village nearby.
7.4.
It will be important for the Councils to justify the inclusion and promotion of 20-minute neighbourhoods in the next stage of the plan if this is to become a central part of this policy.

Other

ID sylw: 108631

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kiely Bros Holdings Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

Policy Direction 26 – Design Codes
7.5.
The Government has a National Design Guide and National Model Design Code which are in place to guide the design of development. The introduction of different design codes covering a range of geographic areas and with varying degrees of detail, is supported by national planning policy, including NPPF 134, which states that design guides and codes can be prepared at an area-wide, neighbourhood or site-specific scale. There would be no need to replicate the content of the National Design Guide and National Model Design Code in the SWLP Part 1.; it will be sufficient to simply refer to the document(s).
7.6.
Whilst our client is supportive of high-quality design and design codes in principle, it is important that innovation and the need to respond to the unique requirements of a site are not unduly inhibited by an overly prescriptive approach. Indeed, the individual character of each site and settlement should be considered on a case-by-case basis in terms of design. Therefore, there must be flexibility within the Design Codes and Local Plan policy to allow developments to come forward even if they are not strictly in accordance with all criteria. Site specific matters and failure to comply with all criteria, where the alternative would not have detrimental impacts, should not be used as a blanket reason to refuse development.

Yes

ID sylw: 108632

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kiely Bros Holdings Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

Policy Direction 27 – Protecting and Enhancing Heritage Assets/The Historic Environment
7.7.
The draft policy direction is considered to provide a suitable framework for a strategic historic environment policy, which would be justified and consistent with the NPPF.

Other

ID sylw: 108633

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kiely Bros Holdings Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

Policy Direction 29 – Pollution
8.1.
There is no objection to this policy direction, which is consistent with NPPF §187(e). That states that new and existing development should be prevented from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution. NPPF §199 notes that planning policies should sustain and contribute towards compliance with relevant limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas.

Other

ID sylw: 108634

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kiely Bros Holdings Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

Policy Direction 30 – Health Impact Assessment for Major Development
8.2.
There is clear support within the NPPF (Section 8) for the creation of healthy and safe communities, and Paragraph 005 of the Healthy and Safe Communities section of the PPG highlights that health impact assessments can be a useful tool where there are expected to be significant impacts on health. The policy direction states that where there will be a significant impact on health and wellbeing, and this cannot be mitigated, applicants will need to compensate for such impacts, through financial contributions.
8.3.
Viability should be taken into consideration; it is imperative for such a policy to not risk undermining the deliverability of much-needed housing sites, in instances where it may be challenging to provide adequate mitigation. This should have been acknowledged within the SA, in relation to potential impacts on SA Objective 9 (Housing).

Other

ID sylw: 108635

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kiely Bros Holdings Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

Policy Direction 31 – Sustainable Transport Accessibility
9.1.
The policy direction is broadly in conformity with national policy requirements. Kiely Bros are supportive of the Council’s aspiration to encourage sustainable transport and reduce reliance on private vehicles. However, the policy will need to acknowledge that given the spatial spread and rural nature of much of South Warwickshire, use of the private car will still be the preferred (and, in some cases, only) option for many residents, in the short-to-medium term. Taking this into account, the Council should ensure that there are appropriate parking standards in place for new developments. Concurrently, the Council should seek to identify and support improvements to sustainable transport throughout the plan period, to reduce the dependency of residents on private vehicles to a greater degree in the decades ahead. Residents should have the opportunity to use efficient and reliable public transport and safely walk or cycle to destinations where possible, as acknowledged in the policy direction.
9.2.
It is stated that proposals must demonstrate how they will incorporate or contribute to high-quality infrastructure that facilitate sustainable travel. Commentary with regards to infrastructure provision has already been provided in relation to Policy Direction 5, and similar considerations also apply here. It is recommended that the policy should provide some flexibility, clarifying which types of proposals should address this within submissions (i.e. major development, but not renewable schemes, where this is not applicable).

Other

ID sylw: 108636

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kiely Bros Holdings Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

Policy Direction 32 – Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Strategy
9.3.
Electric vehicle charging is addressed within Warwick’s Parking Standards SPD and Stratford’s Part R – Air Quality SPD. Policy Direction 31 also refers to charging infrastructure for electric vehicles. It is unclear if the Plan requires a freestanding EV policy, or if this is not more readily addressed through Policy Direction 31.

Yes

ID sylw: 108637

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kiely Bros Holdings Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

Policy Direction 35 – Smart Cities
9.4.
The content in this policy direction is supported. It is consistent with the NPPF §§119, 120, 82 and 83, which highlight the importance of advanced, high quality and reliable communications infrastructure, with this being essential for economic growth and social
wellbeing, and supporting rural villages.
9.5.
However, it is contended that the name of the policy direction, ‘Smart Cities’, is perhaps not appropriate for South Warwickshire, which consists of large rural areas, many smaller settlements, and no cities.
9.6.
The Government’s Post Note on Smart Cities (no. 656, September 2021) defines ‘smart city’ projects as “digital technologies and data to improve places by providing citizens with social, economic, and environmental benefits”; as the name suggests, the Post Note states that smart city technologies are mostly deployed in urban areas and would thus not be applicable to most of Stratford and Warwick Districts. The policy direction itself makes no reference to the term ‘smart cities’, with no definition provided (leaving this open to interpretation), nor are technologies included which could be described as ‘smart’, with most of the focus being on high-speed broadband.
9.7.
The policy should be renamed to better reflect its content and local geography or revised with a greater emphasis on smart city technologies and applications, with a clear relevance to South Warwickshire, including its rural settlements; for example, by clarifying whether such technologies should be incorporated into developments of a certain nature and scale, across the district, or restricted to schemes within or on the edge of urban areas.

Yes

ID sylw: 108638

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kiely Bros Holdings Ltd

Asiant : Pegasus Group

Policy Direction 36 – Protection of Sites, Habitats and Species
10.1.
This policy direction is broadly supported, with NPPF §§ 187 and 192 sets out the requirements to protect and enhance biodiversity. However, the policy direction suggests that a final policy will follow the principles outlined in the Lawton Report (Making Space for Nature: A review of England’s Wildlife Sites and Ecological Network). This was published in September 2010. NPPF §32 notes that plans should be underpinned by the latest available evidence. Whilst this report is not strictly part of the evidence base, it is nonetheless clearly being used to shape the content and structure of the policy. By the time the SWLP Part 1 is adopted, it will be almost two decades since the publication of the Lawton Report. More recent reports and studies should be consulted to ensure that the policy reflects the latest thinking and most effective approaches to the protection and conservation of species.