Q-I5: Please add any comments you wish to make about infrastructure, viability and deliverability

Development is desperately needed and fundamentally it is developers who deliver what the Council require in relation to housing and infrastructure needs. Any additional costs beyond what is necessary for the development delivery are additional costs which will ultimately be passed onto the ultimate consumer or make the project unviable, preventing an approved scheme from coming to fruition and helping to meet the Council’s demands. Such as the supply of much needed housing or employment opportunities. Nationally the proportion of large sites is increasing because many of the loopholes and demand are disproportionately costly and thus favour larger sites. Larger sites that are harder to incorporate into local communities and place a greater strain on local infrastructure and services. The Council should review its planning policy so that smaller sites are easier to gain planning permission for across the whole area, so that development can be incorporated into existing communities and support local services, especially in rural areas. These small projects are much more deliverable, distribute development equally and reduce the reliance on a few huge developments. Please also see response associated with Q-I4.

A greater joined up approach is required to integrate health, education and transport needs when planning new settlements and increasing village development. In the past housing and economic development have come first before proper consideration and thought is given to infrastructure needs.

Ignoring infrastructure requirements before permitting new development can have a deprecating effect on both existing and new development. For example, failure to consider wastewater run off may lead to flooding of both existing and new properties, failure to consider telephony requirements can lead to contentious and unsightly retro-fitting of mobile phone masts, and failure to consider health infrastructure may lead to inadequate service provision.

Whilst assessing land for suitability and viability, care should be used to ensure that suitable employment land is available and surplus brown field sites should then be used for housing and infrastructure in preference to taking agricultural land / Green Belt land out of production. Rewilding projects for natural diversity and / or green open space should be given support and not relegated in favour of more urban spraul recognising that South Warwickshire is predominately a rural County.

Regarding SWLP___12Nov21: Camp Farm, REFID32,DISTRICT WDC,WARD Kenilworth Abbey and Arden, PARISH Kenilworth, SITENAME Camp Farm ADDRESS Hollis Lane, Kenilworth, CV8 2JY, CURR_USE Agricultural, PROP_USE Housing / Residential, NOTES SUB_AREA 19.00,ACT_AREA 19.81 USES I do not think this is a viable site for housing as the site was considered for the new Kenilworth School but was rejected due to the high water table in this area. The fields are often flooded. With regard to the highways any increased traffic from this area will result in congestion on the main road into Kenilworth. Building houses here will also join up Kenilworth with Burton Green and Coventry and we shall lose the separate nature of Kenilworth.

There should be a bias towards creating new settlements that do not harm existing established small villages and town. It is more cost effective and efficient to integrate infrastructure from the design stage. This approach produces viable, sustainable housing to meet furore needs and beyond.

No answer given

Where is the money going to come from ? Also in Henley in Arden there is no room for affordable homes

I don’t think it’s viable. Plenty of old buildings/ disused or otherwise need cleaning up and used for new homes. Just too easy to build on green/wild land. Especially in such a historic area. WHY??

All sites which are to be re-designated for alternative use should be subject to local consultation on the same basis as a planning application. The suitability of sites should also be judged against the SWLP strategic criteria.

A greater focus needs to be placed on the provision of public transport through Moreton Morrell or the provision of safe to walk footways to Wellesbourne, which is the nearest village for the provisions of food, GP practice, dentist, post office etc.

Does infrastructure take into account the effects of these developments on local roads? Does anyone add up the toll of all developments (current and planned) on road users, junctions, local ‘rat runs’? Common Lane in Kenilworth is near these developments and is a cut through for a lot of traffic. The new traffic lights at the bridge made things worse by letting traffic through in waves, to build up at the junction with Coventry Road where it is extremely hard to make a right turn. This has lead to an alarming increase in volume and speed of traffic down Woodland Road in order to ‘cut the corner’. It’s all very well building near a bus stop but in reality you have to think about cars and the result of the increase of say, 2000, extra cars around the local roads but you NEVER DO!!

It is obvious that a coherent strategy is essential for sites and infrastructure. However, is it going to be just more words again? We see the Long Marston and Meon Vale developments going ahead with all of the consequent traffic generation. However, where's the necessary infrastructure to support them? The junctions at Clopton Bridge and Seven Meadows Roads have not been improved to cope, so look at the tail backs caused by their inadequacies. The lesson from the London Docklands years ago was that infrastructure should go in first, then the development. Clearly, getting the new houses and all the extra Council Tax they pay is attractive for the Councils, particularly if they don't spend anything on infrastructure - or is that the true strategy?

Public Transport costs also need to be subsidised extensively to encourage people to use them, this should be done at government level as in many European countries. If massive social unrest is to be avoided then it is crucial that people have access to cheap & very regular public transport.

There should be a presumption in favour of previously developed land and buildings

This is an essential Requirement: "Additionally, an Infrastructure Delivery Strategy and associated viability assessments will be undertaken as the Local Plan progresses to ensure that what is put forward as a preferred development strategy is both deliverable and viable."

Essential Infrastructure specific to a development must be delivered either prior to work or in tandem with such work NEVER after the development. eg build the primary schools before the houses and not after, the same goes for shops, medical services, community buildings, offices etc.

I would like to see much better provision for cyclists enabling them to travel safely to and from school and work. the provision of safe cycle routes should be key to the suitability of sites.

how can we judge before we see the HELAA?

Infrastructure requirements should be set out as fully as possible in the Part 1 Plan. One of the challenges faced by strategic development such as that being pursued at Coventry Airport is the uncertainty associated with the provision and funding of infrastructure required directly to support it, or required in part to support it, or which might in fact be associated more properly with a range of other proposals but nonetheless becomes drawn in to the consideration of major schemes. Clarity is required at the outset so that strategic development of the type envisaged by the Part 1 Plan can be brought forward with confidence and in an informed manner, whilst also ensuring that later proposals dealt with at the Part 2 stage can be delivered seamlessly and without being over or under burdened by infrastructure requirements. In circumstances where a zoned approach to CIL is possible in a single levy the benefit of having separate levies is perhaps marginal. However, it would more easily allow for differences in local conditions, which vary greatly within and between the two Districts, to be reflected in the approach to charging, and for the approach to charging to adapt more swiftly as circumstances change.

A District plan must include elements that reflect infrastructure needs such as education, retail, transport, health and social care that are the responsibility of other authorities.

Plans for the development of new housing seem to be divorced from other human needs. For example, there seems to be no indication in the Plan about the impact on local services and how they will need to grow to meet new housing requirements. This includes schools, health facilities (GPs and hospitals), police and fire services, employment opportunities, transport links and leisure and wellbeing options. These facilities need to be planned and built in sync with any extra housing.

It's important to have an integrated plan particularly around transport. And to be able to deliver - finance is usually a limiting factor. I can see no further govt finance going into improving bus services. The growth options that include Alcester are bases on it having hourly bus services but the evidence in the bus accessibility mapping is flawed - it only considered 7am-9am, outside those school service times, bus services are infrequent. Also many residents commute outside the mapped area. Services to hospitals from Alcester are infrequent and poor eg to Warwick it involves 3 buses and takes over 1.5 hrs each way

If developments are proposed near boundaries with neighbouring authorities, there must be close collaboration with the neighbouring authority to ensure that the infrastructure over the boundary is capable of supporting the new developments, and timely, even though they are not preparing a Local Plan at the same time. An example is the area in Warwick District near to Hockley Heath, which is in Solihull

Much of what is written is meaningless. It's words on a page. This is in a way a statement of the obvious.

NEW HOUSES SHOULD BE BUILT WHERE EXISTING INFRASTUCTURE EXISTS

It is preferable for the community to know what is happening and where. This should eliminate the possibilty of anything coming in from through the backdoor.

Important to have the grand plan plus the ability to deliver financially- we don't want a repeat of Long Marston and the South West Relief Road.

Infrastructure requirements should be set out as fully as possible in the Part 1 Plan. The success of the Plan will depend in no small part on its ability to enable strategic growth, and in terms of the employment and housing requirements it seeks to achieve. If those aspirations are not to be frustrated then certainty is required in terms of the infrastructure needed to support it, and the relationship between that and the infrastructure that might be required later to support non-strategic / Part 2 development. Clarity is required at the outset so that strategic development can be brought forward with confidence and in an informed manner, whilst also ensuring that later non-strategic development can be delivered seamlessly and without being over or under burdened by infrastructure requirements. In circumstances where a zoned approach to CIL is possible in a single levy the benefit of having separate levies is perhaps marginal. However, it would more easily allow for differences in local conditions, which vary greatly within and between the two Districts, to be reflected in the approach to charging, and for the approach to charging to adapt more swiftly as circumstances change.

Whilst land has been made available for M42 widening it is difficult to assess both the timescales and effect of this widening (which should also include M40 to M6 stretch which is also heavily congested). The concern is that without the effect of these upgrades both being understood and delivered, no further development along the M42 corridor is viable and will have a significant impact on an already congested stretch of motorway. It is also important that green belt is preserved for the enjoyment of everyone and to provide a break to urban sprawl