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

S8.1 There should probably be a THRESHOLD approach to development outside the chosen GROWTH STRATEGY, however it should have some flexibility built in where really appropriate sites, welcomed by the community/NDP come forward at a later date, beyond any adoption of the SWLP.

S9 - Save ALL existing boundaries unless change is actively driven by their communities.

Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton as a community are universally frightened by the prospect of Warwick and Leamington sprawling over the countryside and now due to occupy all the space beyond the old Banbury Road. We would suggest that there should be a RED LINE established preventing new development south of the M40 at the very least and preferably also excluding the triangle of land (Park Fm, Spinney Fm and Red House Fm) bounded by the old Banbury Road A4100 and A425 and Barford Road Warwick – effectively creating a “zone of restraint” south of the Leamington/Warwick built up area. In particular this would protect Sherbourne from being totally overwhelmed by the threatened industrial development adjacent to J15 of the M40.

BROWNFIELD SITES – The JPC believes that brownfield sites should be subject to much more scrutiny and should be fully exploited, even if they are notionally less sustainable or economic, rather than taking more greenfield sites for ease of development and cost savings. This principle should particularly apply to the numbers we may be expected to take from Coventry, Birmingham and the Black Country where it is known that extensive tracts of brownfield sites are not being utilised.

As a Kenilworth resident I want to register my dismay at the amount of land that has been earmarked for new housing development. Kenilworth's major asset (the castle) is at risk of losing the various country walks on land adjacent to it. Please try to keep the green fields around the back and towards Chase Lane untouched. The infrastructure of the town is already under pressure - specifically I am concerned about medical facilities, water pressure and extra traffic (Kenilworth's station will be a long walk away from these proposed sites and there very few trains so increased car journeys are inevitable).

I object to the scale and scope of the propped housing development in the village of Wootton Wawen (up to 500 homes). 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 summary, 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.

Clearly a wish list too far. Wootton Wawen has some 600 dwellings ( mobile homes do not count) and to think that 500 extra houses are possible is crazy. The infrastructure with everything from traffic lights, wider roads, and reduction in speeding especially when the motorway is blocked and resorting to lane SatNav gives this village traffic jams all the time. I question how many who have devised this plan actually live in the proposed "development Areas", which FOI question should be put with a note of how many times if any physically the planners have looked on the ground and not on a map at the situation.

It is essential that the green belt is maintained to separate Leamington and Kenilworth. This is already being eroded by the development to the south of Kenilworth at Thickthorn. If there is building on the green belt, the very popular recreational facility currently available would be lost as the country footpaths would be subsumed into a housing estate.

In December 2022 Rishi Sunak made a policy speech commenting particularly on housing targets and green belt. The conclusion to that speech was to diminish the importance of housing targets and stress the importance of maintaining the character of an area! This plan and the criteria used does not seem to consider character. The green belt is also an important consideration to sustainability - cities need green space and countryside around them both in defining character but also well being and sustainability. Those green belts also have the benefit of defining boundaries.

Argument 1. The Green Belt around North Leamington fulfils the stated purpose of Green Belt land. The five purposes of Green Belt land are to: ● check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas ● prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another ● assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment ● preserve the setting and special character of historic towns ● assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Argument 2. The Green Belt around North Leamington is a valued open space. In surveys residents say that the open Green Belt location is the thing they value most about living in the area, with benefits for both physical and mental health. It is easily accessible on foot from North Leamington so many people can access the public rights of way across the fields. Use of these footpaths increased markedly during lockdown and these high levels of use continue today. The agricultural land continues to provide rural employment and undergo diversification of farming techniques. Its continued use for modern arable, grazing and wildlife refuge helps preserve the characteristics of the rural Victorian village of Old Milverton enjoyed by so many. The recreational, educational and health benefits to those in surrounding urban and suburban areas are important now more than ever

Having 7 new settlements is the more acceptable option instead of numbers of individual developments which would have an adverse effect on the character and openness of many small villages.

The proposed sites for building and construction around Wood End are totally inappropriate and unwanted by residents. I would like to see these proposals dismissed as an option, as they are causing a great deal of worry to locals that their area will be blighted by the threat of these plans.

Comment relating to 4.1: I question and disagree with the logic that we should seek to create jobs that need to be filled by outsiders, leading to more homebuilding. What is the rationale? Will this make the lives of the existing residents happier and healthier? I think not.

Development in Old Milverton would be served by one small road which is already dangerous. Any work to widen the access route would contradict any and all proclamations from developers to save the landscape from destruction. The proposed development would conjoin the villages of Old Milverton and Blackdown to Leamington, and make the green belt that is remaining into an area for leisure instead of working agricultural land. This would destroy the purpose of the green belt.

The proposal will lead to coalescence of settlements and negative impact on recreational experience. These access routes to greenbelt were heavily used throughout lockdown and continues to be popular - this appraisal ignore the main purpose of designated Green Belt

Development in green belt to north of leamington in Old Milverton and Blackdown would result in a big loss of a recreational resource highly valued by residents walking from north leamington in the direction of the Saxon Mill. This proposal was decided against less than 6 years ago.

All the options include a significant urban extension of 1000 – 4000 homes in the Meon Vale / Long Marston Airfield area and 30 – 60 ha of employment land. This is a situation whereby there is inequitable consideration of other areas that do have connectivity - M40, A46 and an existing network. To place large quantities of houses in one area does not strike of a consideration of people or environment. The SA needs to be clear about the barriers to progress and at the moment we are entering a recession. One where most people are facing significant financial problems, except for a few. We can already see that local amenities are going under like pubs, very few are coming forward with the sort of investment in services to communities. If we are not careful we will end up with a massive housing estate with no connection or community. Seriously the only industrial connection is the industrial estate in Meon, which is significantly made up of foreign vehicles delivering stock. I cannot see how this encourages local community developments for self sufficiency. Needs more depth and understanding of the need to grow the local community not the international/national profits of large companies like developers.

In surveys residents say that the open Green Belt location is the thing they value most about living in the area, with benefits for both physical and mental health. It is easily accessible on foot from North Leamington so many people can access the public rights of way across the fields. Use of these footpaths increased markedly during lockdown and these high levels of use continue today. The agricultural land continues to provide rural employment and undergo diversification of farming techniques. Its continued use for modern arable, grazing and wildlife refuge helps preserve the characteristics of the rural Victorian village of Old Milverton enjoyed by so many. The recreational, educational and health benefits to those in surrounding urban and suburban areas are important now more than ever.

General comments relating to this as well as associated questions. Q-I2 : While many of these aspirations are laudable, it is however worth noting that all of these things cost money. These asks make housing more expensive and costs businesses money, at a time when money is scarce for many following Covid-19 and the cost of living crisis. The Council should consider what asks, at a time of crisis with limited growth projected over the coming years, are reasonable to make. The asks should also be directly linked to the development itself and kept to a minimum to prevent the costs exceeding what is reasonable. With regards to Section 106, it can be used to help make development more acceptable it should always be the case that unacceptable development is refused and sustainable development is permitted. Restraint should be present when considering if a Section 106 payment or condition is able to tilt the balance. Q-I3: Subject to the new levy being introduced by the Levelling Up legislation and the Council's desire for increased opportunities.

please see my answer to Q14.2. it's vital to keep gaps between the towns and villages, otherwise Warwickshire will become a vast conurbation and lose it's rural feel.

Specifically in response to QI2: Government uses three separate approaches to the provision of the infrastructure needed for development. Without changes in national policies no single approach is possible. A better solution would involve the government leading on the provision of basic infrastructure. More generally: The level of growth and development proposed will have to be accompanied by a clear-eyed analysis of all infrastructure requirements, along with a funded commitment to implementing them fully. Ideally this should include all scales and types of locations to ensure a unified approach across the area. It should also recognise that there will be generalised ‘spillover’ from growth in particular locations. One important example is the impact of expanded settlements on traffic flow more broadly across the area. Over recent decades the addition of new housing on the edges of Leamington Spa and Warwick has led to increasing traffic congestion both on the north/south and east/west routes. The layout of the towns, (roads, railway lines, rivers, the canal and Warwick park) prevent the construction of any new through routes. The existing cycling infrastructure does not provide easy and safe cross town routes either. Further new housing and other development on the outskirts of the towns will further exacerbate this problem. The alternative is to focus on expanding existing small and larger settlements without the historical constraints faced by more new housing to the edges of the two towns.

Please see comments relating to associated questions. Q-S1: All of the policies have items that could be incorporated into a new policy. As with all policy there must be balance with other competing needs and much green investment and maintenance of projects needs to be paid for by development or at least a strong and sustainable local economy. Q-S2: Intensification can represent low hanging fruit and there are many options highlighted in the document that can make a positive contribution, but as always it must be assessed on a case by case basis. The CLA would support greater emphasis being placed on the conversion of older tired agricultural and forestry buildings, although not brownfield, naturally lend themselves to development. This would give these buildings a new lease of life (development can improve the aesthetics of many of these buildings even in the Green Belt), provide much needed rural housing/employment opportunities and fairly spread development. Such development would have positive secondary benefits of providing rural housing and jobs to those who would be actively maintaining the beautiful South Warwickshire countryside.

My overall view is that we should primarily and strongly focus on the creation of a major new landmark settlement, build ground-up with all required infrastructure. Milton Keynes is the obvious example of this approach. The complexity of achieving this model, and ambition required to even start the process, is considerable. It may well, however, be simpler than seeking to bolt-onto existing settlements. Take Radford Semele as an example. Whilst growth of some settlements may theoretically be possible, the practicalities may make it practically difficult. For example, any potential extension to Radford Semele should not result in the merging of the village with Whitnash or Leamington Spa, the result of which would simply make the village a suburb. This would mean that any extension, in the particular case of Radford Semele, would require relaxing building constraints towards the Fosse. This would itself raise significant issues including greenbelt impacts, the lack of infrastructure and great difficulty in sustaining a sense of community for a settlement that would run the danger of being simply sets of houses along a main road with no obvious links to either the historical centre of the Village or its current modern centre, rather than a traditional village with a central heart extending with circularity outwards. These complications are likely to exist across South Warwickshire - there will be few easy wins.

Growth of existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy. In addition, growth should be focused towards ‘unsustainable,’ especially rural areas, rather than using the Settlement Hierarchy to starve these areas of development. Thereby creating a negative loop. Development is needed in these areas to provide housing opportunity and lower local prices, to provide job opportunity and to support local services (the more customers there are in rural areas the better broadband will be and the more local bus support there will be) rather than having policy that treats rural decline as a fait accompli. Development opportunity must be supported across the whole area, as well as in the open countryside otherwise the problems the Council site will only get worse. There are a large number of protected areas and Listed Buildings, which again are expensive to repair and run. The lack of having a thriving local community can lead to a lack of money to be spent on repairs and local trades to undertake the works.

Over the next 25-30 years it is inevitable that some growth will be needed to existing settlements and in respect of Wellesbourne the areas for proposed growth have been highlighted in the adopted Neighbourhood Development Plan. Of particular importance is the full protection of the Allotments Site which is owned by the Diocese of Coventry and must be excluded from the SWLP for any development. The Bishop of Coventry has already confirmed that they have no plans to develop this site and therefore it is essential that this land which has been cultivated for nearly 100 years is protected at all costs and becomes an Area of Restraint.

The heritage and settlement sensitivity assessment is vital to maintaining the overal nature of rural South Warwickshire and in the light of climate change and the uncertainty of future weather patterns, there should be NO building / development on 1 in 100 year flood plain. Flood eleviation works should be encouraged and / or paid for with CIL funding.

Focus should be placed on ensuring the right sort of development that can make public transport viable for both the new and existing communities, principally by creating the required density to support frequent affordable services to key towns and cities.

Yes [grow existing settlements] as long as the growth does not fundamentally change the nature of that settlement eg the proposal for Weston under Weatherly

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.

Sustainability should be focused on brownfield sites in existing settlements, mainly towns.