Q-S10: Please add any comments you wish to make about the development distribution strategy for South Warwickshire

With the birth rate in the UK dropping (not to say the rest of the world) is it necessary for all this new development?

Every house you give planning permission for it ruining your children's future. They will be living in a dystopian urban nightmare. Imagine the whole of southern England looking like Tower Hamlets. If you persist in your current local plan, please could you make it clear that this is your objective. And then include a couple of pictures, one of Warwickshire country (with a caption "From this...") and one of Tower Hamlets (with a caption "... to this by 2100"). That will make the impact of your plan clear to the reader. Thank you.

Custom and Self-build sites on unallocated sites adjacent to BUABs should be expanded to include appropriate Green Belt locations (for example sustainable locations such as Snitterfield). The demand for self-build sites is universal /nationwide and therefore should include GB locations in principle.

The overall direction remains consistent with previous policy. If affordable housing and economic development (which sets the foundation for environmental improvement) is to be achieved, especially in lagging rural areas, there should be a conscious move to allow/strongly support rural development and diversification, not continually starve rural areas of much needed development or only permit certain types of development – this only leads to unbalanced areas, for example tea shops/tourism do not allow for a sustainable year round rural economy with a diverse range of opportunities and well paid jobs. As this only leads to economic stagnation, inability to deliver green objectives and ever reducing housing opportunities. For more information please find enclosed CLA Documents relating to sustainable villages and development. Q-S9: All of these policies have points that can be incorporated into a new policy given the incompatibility of some of the policies to cover the whole requirement. It is worth reiterating that settlement boundaries, while material considerations, should not be considered as lard lines. As growth and development is absolutely essential if affordable housing is to be provided and economic opportunity is to be achieved. Q-S8: Development should be supported outside the chosen growth strategy. An assessment could be made but it may be appropriate not to place on arbitrary thresholds that cover the whole area, as the proposal must be considered in reference to the local area. But the CLA would support many smaller sites of say 10 houses so that organic incremental sustainable development can be achieved which would support the local area. With any threshold potentially having to be considered in context of the proposals for large new settlements. It may be the case that building in rural areas is to be encouraged and not discouraged in order to permit development that would lead to growth, levelling up and to make these areas more sustainable. This is essential as approximately half of the population live outside large settlements the planning policies must reflect the need to focus development towards rural areas where they have been starved of development. An appropriate limit must be considered in context of the size of the local area, the demand for housing along with local networks and services. As a settlement may require 20 new houses to satisfy local demands and support local schools. In such a case the Council should look at each case and acknowledge that applications always reflect the number of houses needed, in South Warwickshire demand exceeds supply and planning policy should not disregard desperate rural housing needs.

Development on existing brown field sites within the existing settlement boundaries should be encouraged to brign these site into ecominic use. Such developments should not encroach into Green Belt or current agricultural productive land or facillities(recognising the market garden / poly tunnel uses).

Earlswood is completely unsuitable for growth. The infrastructure is already failing with the increased population caused by the recent developments. There is no true focal point to the settlement. The rail infrastructure has no parking, there are virtually no street lights so no one can walk anywhere in the dark. in addition the land is used for agriculture which is vital in maintaining the countries food independence. Nearby Wood End has a large woodland vital for both our climate and ecology in the area. Finally it's a very small rural area and any development will have a substantial impact on the existing occupants. Both of these proposed locations are completely unsuitable for further development.

I object to the scale and scope of the propped housing development in the village of Wootton Wawen. I do not object to the principal of building homes, however, this this should be small pockets that amount to no more than a total of 100 homes. My reasoning is based on three main themes, firstly irrevocable loss of Green Belt, secondly the impact on infrastructure and thirdly, the flawed argument in the South Warwickshire Local Plan predetermining a bias for housing development in areas close to a railway station. Green Belt The Green Belt in the UK is a protected area of land around cities and towns that is designated for conservation and recreation. Housing development in this area could have several negative consequences: • Loss of green space: The Green Belt provides valuable green space for local communities and wildlife, and its loss to housing development would result in a reduction of such spaces, potentially leading to urbanization and the disappearance of valuable habitats. • Loss of openness: openness is capable of having both spatial and visual aspects – in other words, the visual impact of the proposal may be relevant, as does its volume. • Increased urban sprawl: Housing developments in the Green Belt would encourage the spread of urban areas into previously protected rural areas, contributing to urban sprawl and reducing the amount of green space available for recreation and conservation. • Damage to natural ecosystems: The construction of housing developments could result in the disturbance of soil and water systems, which could have negative impacts on local ecosystems and wildlife. • Decreased quality of life: The loss of green space could lead to an increased sense of crowding, a reduction in air quality, and increased traffic congestion, all of which can negatively affect quality of life for local residents. • Protection of agricultural land: The Green Belt contains valuable agricultural land that provides food and livelihoods for local communities. The loss of this land to housing development could harm local economies and reduce the country's food security. In conclusion, the Green Belt provides important benefits to local communities and the environment, and housing development in this area will result in significant negative consequences. Once we have lost areas of the Green Belt they are lost in perpetuity, therefore, it is important to maintain the Green Belt's protected status to ensure that these benefits are preserved for future generations. Infrastructure The scale of the proposed housing development will have a significant impact on the infrastructure of the community, which will result in several negative consequences: • Overcrowded public services: The scale and scope of the propose housing developments will result in a dramatic increase in local population doubling it within a few years. This will put pressure on local public services such as heath provisions, education. • Increased traffic congestion: The majority of local roads are barley capable of handling the current amount of traffic. The needs of local agriculture, industry and a substantial grain storage facility already stretch the infrastructure. • Strained utilities: The scope and scale of the proposed development will put a strain on water, electricity, and sewage systems, which may not be able to accommodate the increased demand. This could lead to shortages, blackouts, and other problems. Proximity to railway station Home working: The South Warwickshire Local Plan takes little or no account of recent socioeconomic changes in a ‘post pandemic’ world. A significant part of the justification for the proposed 500 houses in this small village is predicated on its proximity to public transport, in particular, the railway station. Whist this argument may have been sustainable when the project was conceived, it is no longer justified. Technological advances, such as high-speed internet and cloud computing, have made it possible for many jobs to be performed from anywhere with an internet connection. This, together with employers acceding to workers preferences, has led to an increase in remote working, which allows employees to work from home without having to commute by rail or other means.

Specifically regarding the proposal to allocate up to 500 new build houses in Wootton Wawen. This is a disproportionate number of houses. A more acceptable number is 100. I will explain: The reasons are that Wootton Wawen has exhausted the availability of sites within the village boundary. Further development will encroach on green belt land. This will destroy the openness of the countryside. Building on the Green Belt need to be kept to the absolute minimum. Any new build houses should be in small pockets. The infrastructure in Wootton Wawen currently at stretching point . The roads, particularly the Alcester Road, are incapable of taking extra traffic. Local farm vehicles and machinery together with lorries to the grain storage facility are already causing problems. GP services are also strained.

I think the housing proposals for green belt on the outskirts of Kenilworth is inappropriate . It would be detrimental to existing residents, would change the nature of the area and join up Kenilworth with Leek Wootton and Burton Green. I accept that some new housing is required especially social and affordable housing to enable young people to stay in the area. However there are ways of planning this development to lessen the impact on existing residents. Parks and green spaces can be planned to separate new housing estates from existing houses. This was done most effectively at Lavender Hall park, Lavender Hall Ln, Balsall Common, Coventry CV7 7BN. There a park was created which separates the new housing estate from existing houses. The advantage is that in addition to the provision of an open public green space the existing houses do not have their environment or outlook changed.

I am a resident of Kenilworth, living on the edges of town (John O'Gaunt Road) and next to one of the proposed sites for housing development. I am strongly against further extending the housing of Kenilworth into more Greenfield sites. We have already lost complete swathes of countryside to HS2 and new housing developments. I do not see how more destruction of more green spaces will support our need to address the climate crisis and tend to the fragile ecosystem that we need to preserve and conserve for future generations. Neighbours we have spoken to along John O'Gaunt Road (CV8 1DZ), Rounds Hill and Rouncil Lane and the community around Clinton Primary School are in widespread opposition to the idea of destroying our nearby green areas. We regularly use the proposed new development site to walk in nature and enhance our own wellbeing and that of our families. Our connectedness to nature is even more important during these fragile times and bringing up children that understand and respect the nature that surrounds them is key. The wildlife will suffer as a result of more development. We regularly see a wide variety of wildlife and birds that live in the hedgerows. The addition of concrete to a wide area that currently has the benefit of deep roots and trees will affect drainage and our precious ecosystem which depends of green spaces to sustain life. There is already a huge amount of development in Kenilworth. The town already struggles with congestion and adding more homes will only add to the volume of traffic and people using the same resources. The infrastructure is already beyond capacity and we are yet to understand the impact of the hundreds of new homes currently in development. The pace of development around Kenilworth seems to be badly thought through. I believe brownfield sites need to be the focus for any new developments. NOT destroying beautiful landscapes where nature thrives and flourishes and where current and future generations of people can appreciate the beauty of our natural environment. Cherishing our green spaces is the only way we can address our climate emergency and stand any hope of attaining the carbon net zero targets. I am heartbroken to think we will lose this precious green belt on our doorstop. I strongly oppose this proposal, I sincerely hope the views I have expressed here will be taken seriously.

Outer Suberb along Rouncil lane area. Strongly object to building houses on land around Kenilworth, taking away one of the aspects that make Kenilworth such a nice place to live. Thousands of houses already planned on existing school sites, from which the town and surrounding roads will struggle to cope.

No recognition that private electric cars will never be cheap enough for exisiting single car households to have one. The '20-minute' neighbourhood or settlement is not just a nice idea. Any neighbourhood which is not a 20-minute neighbourhood is going to die by 2050.

Too complex

Retain the use of the definition of "Local Service Villages" when considering the distribution strategy. There is no point encouraging development in villages that fall outside the LSV criteria.

1. The South Warwickshire Local Plan process should fully examine all other options, including new settlement options outside of the Green belt, before starting a study to review Green belt boundaries in South Warwickshire. 2. An area should maintain its Green belt status if it meets any one of the 5 purposes of Green Belt, as defined in the National Planning Policy framework. The Issues and options consultation is proposing to go against National Planning policy - by suggesting that the study considers areas that no longer meet all 5 of the Green belt purposes, for removal of the Green belt. 3. Further research is required to determine the affect of the cycle lane being established between Leamington Spa and Kenilworth. There is high traffic congestion leading to significant carbon monoxide measurements within the area - this us not accounted for in the already very high estimates predicted within the study so far.(see fig 14). 4. By not implementing any changes we sustain a far cleaner environment - by reducing the tCO2e by 3500000 units over a 5 year forecast. (Date referred to fig 14). Study is required to determine what medical side affects are likely to be incurred on the local population - if any of the plans are implemented. 5. Social infrastructure to support housing is not established - no schooling, no transport, not enough roads, severe traffic congestion already experienced in Leamington town centre _ this requires study by subject matter experts independent of council direction / house builders commercial incentives. 6. The study needs to determine if the housing planning for Warwickshire has been determined accurately and not be flawed - by peaks and troughs of student accommodation requirements. Coventry has built many student flats - which are currently empty - as anticipated influx of students from abroad has not happened. 7. The study needs to factor in better use of all brown field sites - including the most recent -disused car parking site in Leamington Spa town centre. 8. The council should focus its resources on how to develop our ever depleting town retail units - as they have reduced dramatically. This is having an adverse affect on raising council tax income for the greater good. 9. The council should focus its resources on how to reduce / stop congestion in Leamington town centre - which is having adverse affects on our environment. The study should determine the affect of the newly built houses over the last 5 years on our congested road infrastructure.

When considering South Warwickshire’s strategy the impact of strategies in the bordering counties should be taken into consideration. For example Oxfordshire’s attitude to development north of Banbury impacts enormously on the villages on the southern edges of South Warwickshire, so the infrastructure and facilities are being challenged by more than one county. This inevitably has consequences for South Warwickshire.

There should be NO reduction to green belt in our plan. Green belt must be maintained for the good of all people who live in or visit.

Kenilworth is part of Warwickshire and UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should it become absorbed in to Coventry, thereby losing is character and charm, which are already eroded due to the vast amounts of new development taking place, which the town already lacks facilities to support (eg: doctors, dentists, supermarkets). We need a band of undeveloped green belt to do its stated job of preventing urban sprawl.

Strongly disagree with proposals to build on green belt land, and particularly the green belt land around Leamington. There are extremely important scientific and health reasons why it is imperative this precious green land remains untouched. It provides vital habitats for our diminishing wildlife ( including precious species - there are endangered newts in the green belt north of leamington, and beautiful heron birds nest and fly over it ), it provides countryside for us to walk in and for our children and future generations to explore and play in, it protects air quality (directly linked to how long we live) , it reduces noise and pollution, it is a part of the identity of Warwickshire having this green space surrounding the towns, it is vital for health and well-being by providing opportunities to take exercise and promote mental health and well-being, it makes the local population feel proud to live here and want to invest in our town and look after it. There has already been extensive housing built around Leamington over last couple of years, built on the lovely green fields, and so no requirement to destroy further green space. Furthermore HS2 is being built just north of Leamington, destroying greenery / habitats / damaging the countryside, please don’t do any more damage. We can never undo the human destruction once it’s happened. Don’t leave such a poor legacy to future generations. Would also add that it would also breach the main Local Plan strategic objectives of: 1. A climate resilient and net zero carbon south Warwickshire 2. A beautiful south Warwickshire 3. A healthy safe south Warwickshire (more roads and pollution) 4. Biodiverse South Warwickshire If more housing needed, please don’t destroy the precious green belt. Look instead at brownfield developments etc. Many thanks

The South Warwickshire Local Plan should fully examine all other options, including new settlement options outside of the Green Belt, before starting a study to review Green Belt boundaries in South Warwickshire.

Greenbelt land should be protected at all times and should not be considered a source of space for housing to be built. The South Warwickshire area is littered with disused buildings and land that could be used for housing without destruction and damage to the biodiversity and open spaces of the community. I work for an organisation that seems to eventually turn every room of their buildings into locker rooms, down to the fact that they poorly manage the existing stock and never refurbish or re-issue leading to the need for growth. This same principle applies through the ever marching use of greenbelt land for housing…..use existing spaces first!!

The South Warwick local plan should protect the walkways AND views enjoyed by local residents and look at all options including use of land outside the green belt before studying Greenbelt land boundaries in South Warwickshire. Also an area should maintain its green belt status if it meets any one of the 5 purposes of green belt as defined in the national Policy framework.

I do not believe development should take place in Green Belt until all other Options have been fully examined. Green Belt is also prime land for developers, it has outstanding beauty and is extremely desirable and hence potentially very profitable for them. They are very astute in applying corporate and professional pressure on local councils to obtain the relevant planning permission - I am seeing this in my own day to day professional life (I am a local Chartered Accountant). In spite of the assurances they give they are only interested in providing housing at a significant profit but it is the local community that then has to live with the legacy of bad developments in areas which they should not have been permitted to develop. Green Belt Area's are designated as such for very good reason and in my view, planning should only be allowed in very, very exceptional circumstances and when a clear, unbuttable case has been established.

I strongly oppose a change to green belt areas around Leamington Spa, considering the area should maintain its green belt status if it meets any ONE of the 5 purposes of green belt, as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework. There is also significant housing already being built to the south of the town, I guess this is classified as Warwick, opposite the Shires, with many homes still not built. I can only assume extending the current green belt in the northern area will lead to even more housing being built long term. I cannot see how this can be justified with no additional infrastructure to support it, including roads and widening of roads such as Kenilworth Road. There is also going to be reduced parking to support future developments with the closure of the Covent Garden car park which supports the north of the town, unless of course you are rebuilding the car park, which is much needed to the north of the town, especially for the elderly and disabled.

Development distribution strategy for South Warwickshire • An area that has natural beauty for all is a small part of Warwickshire’s green and pleasant land. NOT for “Environmental Vandalism” hence the reason not to remove the green belt. • These areas have public rights of way which enables all who visit to encounter the countryside, providing the chance to encounter the wildlife along with wide open spaces which is good for mental health. Not just for now but for the long term for all to enjoy. • Other consideration not to destroy the green belt. Traffic congestion is not well managed with schools in the area at peak times just waiting for accidents to happen by frustrated local residents and with inconsiderate parents dropping off children causing road congestion. • The local area struggles now with infrastructure and this will only get worse. The South Warwickshire - local plan process should FULLY EXAMINE ALL OTHER OPTIONS. When considering the irreversible damage of destroying the “ Green Belt Boundaries” in South Warwickshire. For example the destruction of trees and local habitat. As highlighted above it is a priority this area should maintain its green belt status if it meets any one of the 5 purposes of green belt, as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework. Therefore, the issues and options being proposed, we would like the study to consider areas that no longer meet all five of the Green Belt purposes.

I live in Blackdown and I am very concerned by the proposals to review the green belt boundaries. The local plan process should fully explore all other options before starting a study into reviewing the green belt boundaries. There must be new settlement options outside the green belt. I believe the green belt is hugely important in terms of nature and the wider green agenda. I also believe that an area should maintain its green belt status if it meets any of the 5 purposes of green belt, as per the NPPF.

I consider any development within the green belt area between North Leamington and Kenilworth to be a. unnecessary b. avoidable and c. in breach of central government ruling relating to the "Green Belt" around Milverton Village. There is an amount of Brown development area un used in and around Leamington Spa. There is an adverse health effect on those currently residing in the North Leamington/Milverton area at the obliteration of the healthy, mentally stimulating green belt, which we had all believed was protected when the Government Inspector decreed that development of this area was un acceptable.

The South Warks Local Plan process should fully examine all other options , including new settlement options outside of the Green Belt, before starting a study to review Green Belt boundaries in South Warks. An area should maintain its Green Belt status if it meets any 1 of the 5 purposes of Green Belt, as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework, rather than requiring that all 5 Green Belt purposes are met. The South Warks Local Plan process should fully ensure, and have evidence, that neighbouring Councils have fully examined all options to provide housing within their own boundaries prior to giving any consideration to the provision of Warwickshire land in order to meet overspill provision from Coventry or any other Council.

Re Green belt boundary review. any one of the 5 purposes for the Green Belt should be sufficient on its own for maintaining an area`s status as Green Belt. The county has suffered great environmental destruction as a result of HS2- 5 times the amount admitted to by HS2Ltd. We must protect what we have left. Use brownfield sites, tax second home owners to raise revenue for affordable housing. Take the climate emergency seriously, please.

One of the main attributes of Leamington (and Warwick) is the proximity to Green Belt land within walking distance. Before beginning a study to review Green Belt boundaries in South Warwickshire we must consider all other options, including redevelopment of existing sites. There are several industrial, commercial and retail developments within the existing boundaries of Warwick and Leamington which remain unoccupied, and which could be redeveloped to boost housing density. Expanding beyond the existing boundaries will encourage increased car usage and decrease air quality.