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

I object whole heartedly to growing existing settlements, priority should be given to reuse of brownfield land.

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.

Regarding Kenilworth the current school and housing development in Kenilworth East is appropriate as the A46 divides Kenilworth with Stoneleigh. However two proposed housing developments in the South Warwickshire Plan do not meet this criteria. The housing proposals for green belt fields at Oaks Farm off Rouncil Lane would be detrimental to existing residents, would change the ‘forest of Arden’ nature of the area and join up Kenilworth with Leek Wootton thus losing the identity of Kenilworth in that area. The other proposed site is on green belt land where Beehive Hill meets Clinton Lane. These fields were rejected previously as a possible site for the new Kenilworth School because of the high water table and because of unacceptable traffic congestion onto the main road into Kenilworth. Building houses there would be detrimental to existing residents and would also join up Kenilworth with Burton Green and Coventry thus losing the identity of Kenilworth.

The size and scope of the proposed allocation of new homes in some of the existing settlements is not justified. Wootton Wawen is a small village. It's proximity to a small railway station has been used as an argument to build up to 500 new homes on Green Belt land. This will have a devastating effect on the openness of the countryside, write-off farmland for food production and result in urban sprawl. Small settlements cannot accommodate this size of expansion in terms of infrastructure. It is clear that small pockets of expansion of up to 100 home in all can be accommodated and integrated. The practice of commuting by railway is already becoming part of history, most people are able to work from home regularly. Trains can only take passengers where the line goes. Personal electric vehicles are the future for residents in small rural settlements.

Comments for Wootton Wawen- I agree that there should be some managed and proportionate development of this village where I currently reside (and have done for 17 years.) The principle of development in close proximity to the railway station has some merit however the scale of development shown (on the interactive plan) is quite disproportionate. Following concerns (1) Unsustainable development- over 50% greater than the existing village size (by dwellings) this would not be sensibly managed; timescales for development would be determined by land owners who would be concerned to maximise their profits under the most favourable market conditions (2) lack of key facilities- school places (in the village or vicinity), health care - GP/pharmacy/community health care services such as CMHT/dentists, social care for both children and adults. Services cannot appropriately respond to existing needs and unless a comprehensive plan to meet the planned development then existing residents would be further disadvantaged leading to poorer health and social care outcomes (3) road network in the proposed area would be inadequate and unsafe particularly to children and those people with mobility issues, the road system is quite simply not geared up to this level of increased development and road usage. There are limited foot paths these would need to be extensively increased on current roads to capitalise upon access to the rail station/bus transport on the A3400. (4) increased risk of flooding- the roads identified for development are already affected by high levels of rainfall and the drainage struggles to manage this, if more green belt land is built over this will add to the problem

We are already over run in villages with houses and do not have enough infrastructure in place to cope with more people . We are villages not towns - stop killing our green space

Growth of existing settlements must not compromise the gaps between towns and villages. Kenilworth is in grave danger of being sucked into Coventry / Westward Heath / Stoneleigh by the Kings Hill development and the massive loss of land that has been trashed by HS2., as well as the infrastructure redevelopments along the A46.

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.

The area proposed in Henley in Arden will destroy the town . It has been developed to the maximum infill

Henley in arden and Warwick need to remain historic towns only. No new housing of such great numbers. 3000 homes around Henley in Arden is quite simply ‘ criminal’ A hamlet that has survived in its exiting form for 100s of years.

We are absolutely devastated to hear of the proposed plans near Henley in Arden. This proposed change will force communities out of the area.

I agree existing settlements across the area should be grown at a significant rate to help address the shortage of homes. I can comment specifically on Wootton Wawen as a resident the village it is well connected to both Birmingham and Stratford via trains, buses and main A46. A expansion would see a boost in the local economy and offer a greater variety of housing options for future generations. As is stands the village has significant room to grow and is not capitalising fully on its potential. The area needs to progress.

Yes, but only relative to the size of the town or village. For instance in Henley in Arden there is no capacity for extending the town by more than a few dozen houses due to conservation areas, flood plains & listed building heritage. The road system is also already at capacity at critical times of day. The train station also needs a free car park at least double or triple the size available currently to accommodate commuters to Birmingham if any new houses are to be considered & the schools, Doctors, Dentist, Banking facilities, , Public Transport links all need upgrading or hugely expanding to cope with any new houses. This is also true of Alcester, Bidford, Shipston Studley etc.

This [growth of existing settlements] needs to be combined q=with improvements in public transport linking these settlements with nearby towns

Growth will be necessary but should be supported by a locally agreed housing needs analysis which reflects national policy. Land in the North Leamington Green Belt should not be developed because local authorities are not expected to meet local housing need where there are genuine constraints, including Green Belt constraints. There are lots of positive reasons for protecting the Green Belt and any development would be costly and detrimental overall. This high value area has already suffered significant Damage to openness and character with the construction of the HS2 railway line causing interruption of farmland and wildlife habitat.

Local housing needs analysis should be re-visited in the light of changing UK government policy. The council should also note that they are not expected to meet local housing needs where genuine constraints such as the Green Belt exist. Please note the Green Belt in North Leamington was deemed to meet many of the 5 purposes of the Green Belt by the planning inspector in 2017, therefore by all Spatial Development options including development of Green Belt land in North Leamington Spa the Local Plan process is going NPPF guidance that advises with respect to Green Belt boundaries they should have 'regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so they can endure beyond the plan period'

Growth has to be in keeping with the settlement... i.e. a village should not become a housing estate

The growth should be proportionate to the size of the existing settlement e.g. a village should not become a town.

Expanding settlement area in the North Kenilworth area would involve the destruction of countryside and numerous associated wildlife habitats as well as impacting adversely one of the key reasons why Kenilworth attracts many visitors

Growth is necessary, but should be supported by a proper assessment of local needs and in line with national policy. The Green Belt around North Leamington meets the stated purposes of Green Belt. Nothing has changed since similar development proposals to those outlined in the Plan were rejected a few years ago. At that time, concern was expressed that development as proposed would adversely impact on Leek Wootton and Cubbington as well as reducing the separation between Leamington and Kenilworth through significant expansion of the built area into the countryside to the north of Leamington. Furthermore, this area has already suffered significant damage to openness and character with HS2 works. Indeed, arguments in favour of maintaining the Green Belt’s contribution to the openness of the countryside, food security and biodiversity are stronger today than when these conclusions were reached. As regards observance of national policy, the Government has recently confirmed that local planning authorities are not expected to review the Green Belt to deliver housing. Assessments of estimates of Local Housing Need should be viewed as simply a starting point for review and not a strict requirement to develop the numbers involved where there are overriding factors preventing delivery. The value of the Green Belt around North Leamington is such an overriding factor.

This [growth of existing settlements] is an option but only if the local infrastructure is increased to support the growth. For example: provision of access to healthcare and emergency services, shops, transport links

Cubbington is currently identified as a Growth Village but with little brownfield sites and has several flood and surface water flood risks. The Cubbington Neighbourhood Plan survey identified that 84% wanted no new housing but if there was any then the development should be assessed on its impact on the whole village and not in isolation. Appropriate development must serve the whole community. Cubbington's population is relatively static, only 5% of those surveyed had family that had moved out because the area was unaffordable – 7% of respondents have relatives who want to move back to the area. The majority of respondents were over 59, have lived in Cubbington over 10 years and were working full time or retired. Cubbington is well served by schools and any housing needs to consider smaller new energy efficient homes to potentially free up larger family homes if residents wish to downsize but remain in the community. On behalf of Cubbington Parish Council.

Growth will be necessary but should be supported by a locally agreed housing needs analysis which reflects national policy. Land in the North Leamington green belt should not be developed because local authorities are not expected to meet local housing need where there are genuine constraints. There are lots of positive reasons for protecting the green belt and any development would be detrimental overall. The Planning Inspector’s 2017 response to the current Local Plan for Warwick District states that there is a need “to maintain the separate identity of surrounding villages such as Leek Wootton and Cubbington and avoid significant reductions in the gap to Kenilworth” (p. 18, para 91). It also states that: “Development of the land in question would involve a substantial expansion of the built up area into currently open countryside to the north of Leamington Spa. It would have a significant adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the character and appearance of the area” (p.34, para 201). This high value area has already suffered significant damage to openness and character with the construction of the HS2 railway line causing interruption of farmland and wildlife habitat. Further adverse development in the area would compound the significant adverse impacts that the Planning Inspector referred to in 2017. If anything, arguments for maintaining the Green Belt’s contribution to the openness of the countryside, food production and biodiversity are stronger now than six years ago when these comments were made. The Government has recently asserted that local planning authorities are not expected to review the Green Belt to deliver housing. Changes to the National Planning Policy Framework mean that the estimated figure for Local Housing Need is “no more than” a starting point and “importantly, that areas will not be expected to meet this need where they are subject to genuine constraints”. The utility of the Green Belt around North Leamington is a genuine constraint on development.

North Leamington, Old Milverton and Blackdown. The easy access to these green fields has a hugely beneficial impact on mental and physical health and also creates levelling up for people without access to the ability to travel to green areas. It's free to walk and it's proven that walking in nature or fields has benefits for mental health

If done sensitively and does not use Green Belt land, it may be possible to grow some of the larger existing settlements. However, this should probably only be in places where moves have already been made to improve infrastructure in the area.

The development north of Leamington around milverton and blackdown goes against the whole point of green belt. Similar proposals were rejected less than six years ago. The Planning Inspector’s 2017 response to the current Local Plan for Warwick District states that there is a need “to maintain the separate identity of surrounding villages such as Leek Wootton and Cubbington and avoid significant reductions in the gap to Kenilworth” (p. 18, para 91). It also states that: “Development of the land in question would involve a substantial expansion of the built up area into currently open countryside to the north of Leamington Spa. It would have a significant adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the character and appearance of the area” (p.34, para 201). This high value area has already suffered significant damage to openness and character with the construction of the HS2 railway line causing interruption of farmland and wildlife habitat. Further adverse development in the area would compound the significant adverse impacts that the Planning Inspector referred to in 2017. If anything, arguments for maintaining the Green Belt’s contribution to the openness of the countryside, food production and biodiversity are stronger now than six years ago when these comments were made. It is not in line with current Government policy. The Government has recently asserted that local planning authorities are not expected to review the Green Belt to deliver housing. (See letter from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities.) Changes to the National Planning Policy Framework mean that the estimated figure for Local Housing Need is “no more than” a starting point and “importantly, that areas will not be expected to meet this need where they are subject to genuine constraints”. The utility of the Green Belt around North Leamington is a genuine constraint on development.

Expansion of Leamington spa, milverton and blackdown, building in green belt: Similar proposals were rejected less than six years ago. The Planning Inspector’s 2017 response to the current Local Plan for Warwick District states that there is a need “to maintain the separate identity of surrounding villages such as Leek Wootton and Cubbington and avoid significant reductions in the gap to Kenilworth” (p. 18, para 91). It also states that: “Development of the land in question would involve a substantial expansion of the built up area into currently open countryside to the north of Leamington Spa. It would have a significant adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the character and appearance of the area” (p.34, para 201). This high value area has already suffered significant damage to openness and character with the construction of the HS2 railway line causing interruption of farmland and wildlife habitat. Further adverse development in the area would compound the significant adverse impacts that the Planning Inspector referred to in 2017. If anything, arguments for maintaining the Green Belt’s contribution to the openness of the countryside, food production and biodiversity are stronger now than six years ago when these comments were made. Argument 6. It is not in line with current Government policy. The Government has recently asserted that local planning authorities are not expected to review the Green Belt to deliver housing. (See letter from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities.) Changes to the National Planning Policy Framework mean that the estimated figure for Local Housing Need is “no more than” a starting point and “importantly, that areas will not be expected to meet this need where they are subject to genuine constraints” (see letter above). The utility of the Green Belt around North Leamington is a genuine constraint on development.

Similar proposals were rejected less than 6 years ago. The Planning Inspectors 2017 response to the current Local Plan for Warwick District states that there is a need “to maintain the separate identity of surrounding villages such as Leek Wootton and Cubbington and avoid significant reductions in the gap to Kenilworth” (p18, para 91). It also states that “Development of the land in question would involve substantial expansion of the built up area into currently open countryside to the north of Leamington Spa. It would have significant adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the character and appearance of the area” (p34, para 201). This high value area has already suffered significant damage to the openness and character with the construction of the HS2 railway line causing interruption of farmland and wildlife habitat. If anything, arguments for maintaining the Green Belt for its contributions to the openness of the countryside, food production and biodiversity are stronger now than when these comments were made six years ago.

South Warwickshire Local Plan I am willing to accept that the stock of housing needs to be increased, but this needs to be of the right type. At the moment all developments seem to be of housing at a price that I do not know how people can afford them. We are in need of a range of housing to cater for all needs and sizes of occupational units. I am against the use of productive agricultural land for housing. Supply chain issues in recent years have highlighted that we need to produce more at home. This also has the advantage of reducing the miles that the food has to travel to reach the consumer and thus pollution. In order to protect our home food supply, only land judged to be of marginal agricultural value should be allowed planning permission, if of course brownfield sites are not available, which should always be the first option. Any permission granted must also include the provision of infrastructure especially sewage treatment. At the moment there are many incidents each year where raw sewage and sanitary products are allowed to be poured untreated into our rivers and onto the sea. This pollution has poisoned our rivers and rendered many beaches unsafe as well as causing other countries to condemn and potentially threaten us with international action for such pollution. Other forms of infrastructure required are medical facilities, roads and schools. It is difficult enough trying to see a Doctor in the Kenilworth area without many more inhabitants being added to their patient lists. Many of the local roads were originally intended primarily for agricultural use and so would need to be upgraded to allow for their safe use by an increased population. Local public transport too would need to be improved and a way found to use the local train station which at the moment is a white elephant. The provision of all these facilities in proportion to the number of expected inhabitants must be a requirement for the granting of any permission to expand the area of Kenilworth.