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

Most of my response here relates to Henley-In-Arden, where I am a resident. The Plan has a clear focus on development in Henley, despite its location in the Greenbelt. In all of the five Spatial Growth Options there is an expectation that Henley will be required to accommodate between 1,000-4,000 additional dwellings. This is classified as 'significant urban expansion.' This will be many thousands more people and is not sustainable growth for Henley and should be opposed. This is a marked departure from the current Stratford District Council Core Strategy 2011 to 2031. This states that 'the key factor that influences the extent and manner in which future development should take place at Henley-in-Arden is the designated Green Belt that surrounds the town. As such, expectional circumstances will need to be proven if land currently within the Green Belt is to be identified for development.' It further states that 'the Landscape Sensitivity Study ... identifies all of the countryside around the town as being of high or high/medium sensitivity to development.' Policy AS.4 states an intention to 'Protect the historic character and appearence of the town and the open spaces within it' (p158/159). I see no reason why this current policy postion should be abandoned. There should be a presumption against development on land liable to flood. The Landform Analysis on p45 of the consultation document indicates just how much of Henley is in a flood zone. This includes the risk of both fluvial flooding and surface water flooding. The SDC Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) highlights that Henley is one of the 'most sensitive' areas in Stratford District to the 'fluvial impacts of climate change.' (SFRA, p49). Extensive development in many parts of Henley, including some areas identified in the Call for Sites is ill-advised and would have negative flood risk implications not just for new developments but existing properties liable to flooding. Henley flooded badly in 2007 and sadly due to the climate emergency and resultant extreme weather it is likely to flood again. Housing development should not exacerbate this issue and building on flood plains is likely to make downstream flooding worse. This includes both flood extent and depth. The condition of existing flood defence assets for Henley is also currently 'unknown' (SFRA, p69) and they may be out of date. Heritage and Settlement Assessment. There is a mismatch between the Heritage and Settlement Assessment (HSA) and the development plans for Henley. The HSA suggests the North East of Henley is RAG-rated Red for development. However the South East, South West and North West are described as having 'scope for carefully considered development.' This is RAG rated Green, but should probably be classifed Amber. However, irrespective of colour designation, this assessment outlines the need for 'carefully considered development' while the Plan suggests Henley should absorb 'significant urban expansion.' This is incompatible with the assesment outlined in the HSA. Settlement Analysis. The Settlement Analysis doesn't provide any specific or overwhelming evidence (p9) as to why Henley should be chosen for 'significant urban expansion' compared with any other 'Second Tier' settlements such as Alcester, Kingswood, Southam, Studley or Wellesbourne. Settlement Boundaries. There should be an option for retaining existing settlement boundaries. Any changes should be decided locally and not via this Plan. Call for Sites. I am not sure how or if we can comment on sites in the Call for Sites at present. However, some of the land already listed includes the Mount/Beaudesert Castle. As this is a Scheduled Ancient Monument this is clearly an inappropriate site for development. This also includes land liable to flooding and land outside the existing settlement boundaries. These options should be opposed.

Existing green belt and other designations surrounding existing villages and towns must be respected and considered as inviolate. They were designated long ago when pressures were less. The need to respect them now is even greater than it was when they were designated. Changing these now will be a precedent for further future changes.

Growth of existing settlements is to be encouraged, but ideally with minimal greenbelt use. This is in line with NPPF Paragraph 120: ‘Planning policies should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs…’ Those settlements with existing infrastructure (rail station, shops etc) should be prioritised, with their amenities being increased in line with the additional development. The growth of small villages with limited amenities and existing infrastructure should be minimised in order to retain those settlements' unique individual character, and to prevent merging.

Any further development of Alcester (other than Brownfield sites) would not satisfy the 10minute neighbourhood rule. Also bus services to/from Alcester are poor - the flawed bus accessibility mapping only looked at 7am-9am when school services run - outside those times service is poor. I can see no reference to protecting Local Green Spaces which are identified in Alcester's Neighbourhood Development Plan

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. 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” (see letter above). The utility of the Green Belt around North Leamington is a genuine constraint on development. Growth will be necessary but should be supported by a locally agreed housing needs analysis which reflects national policy. Land to the North of 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.

Growth is necessary but should be agreed by looking at what is needed locally. Land in North Leamington’s Green Belt should not be developed because local authorities are not expected to meet local housing needs where there are genuine constraints. There are many positive reasons for protecting Green Belt land.

Local housing development must reflect national policy, and local housing needs should be not be met where there are genuine constraints, such as the green belt. Any development of the green belt would be detrimental, and it has already suffered greatly with the development of HS2, where large chunks of green belt were lost or cut up.

Growth will be necessary but should be supported by locally agreed housing needs that reflects national policy. The land in North Leamington should not be developed because local authorities are not expected to meet local housing needs where there are genuine constraints including Green Belt constraints. 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”

I don't believe that existing settlements should grow to provide the need for housing in the area. Brownfield and redevelopments of existing housing stock should be exhaustively used for a generation before any further infill on the edge of smaller towns and villages. It not only has biodiversity issues alongside c02 travel implications to jobs but also has an impact on the character of these smaller villages.

I don't believe growing existing settlements is a sustainable solution. It will result in more greenbelt being used with a loss of biodiversity and cause merging of existing settlements over time. Brownfield sites should be exhaustively cleared and used for a generation before any growth outside current settlements be considered

[Support growth of existing settlements] if that settlement growth contributes in terms of affordable housing near to employment sites or provides improvements to failing infrastructure in existing sites. The recent planning inspectors report (2017) cited a need to maintain the separate identity of surrounding villages and decries development plans which involve substantial expansion of the built up area into currently open countryside. Such plans, where they involve proposals to develop within the greenbelt are at odds with the inspector's report issued following the last WDC planning consultation and the more recent 'levelling-up' agenda of central government (M. Gove 2022).

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. 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” (see letter above). The utility of the Green Belt around North Leamington is a genuine constraint on development.

While some growth is necessary, it should be supported by a locally agreed housing needs analysis. There is a risk that the current document will allow land in the north leamington green belt to be developed because local authorities are not expected to meet local housing need. That is wrong. The land in north leamington green belt should not be developed because there are genuine constraints. Constraints include green belt constraints. There are major reasons for protecting the green belt. Any development on it would be costly and detrimental overall.

The quality of roads in the area need to be taken into account along with capacity, age, and efficiency of all other infrastructure, such as sewers, culverts, shops, schools, etc. Bolting new developments onto old infrastructure may well be less environmentally beneficial and sustainable than building new settlements

Growth of existing settlements should be within the current curtilage of the settlement, where viable, and not spreading into surrounding green field land.

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. 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” (see letter above). The utility of the Green Belt around North Leamington is a genuine constraint on development.

YES IMPORTANT WE EXTEND AND ADD ON TO EXISTING SETTLEMENTS AND REVIEW GREEN BELT TO ACHEIVE THIS

Yes I think there is potential for some existing settlements to be expanded eg Lighthorne/Gaydon, especially if a railway station were to be provided to facilitate transport. On the other hand I think that the expanson south of Warwick and Leamington has probably reached a limit. To the north I would not want to see an expansion of Leamington into the Green Belt . There are only 15 Green Belts in the country and I think they should be cjerished. the land to the north of Leamington provides a break between Leamington and Old Milverton and between Leamington and Kenilworth. It is actively farmed and much of it also provides valuable recreational space with its many footpaths.

Growth of existing settlements should only be considered where it does not require development in the greenbelt. Therefore the increase in and around Weston under Wetherley is totally inappropriate for inclusion in the development plan. where growth of existing settlements cannot be assured without using green belt land , alternative solutions should be considered that do NOT involve green belt land.

Covid has redefined living, shopping and leisure patterns and therefore the overall strategy needs to support businesses within those existing towns and settlements. Growth of existing settlements, if done correctly, would seem to be the best way of maintaining the character of our area as a whole and there are many recent examples of developments constructed that blend in well with the existing character of both the immediate vicinity and impact of the area as a whole. This type of development would be far more preferable than the destruction of important green belt land which is there to define the boundary between urban and rural development

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 to protect the green belt, and any development would be costly and detrimental overall.

Growth of existing settlements , such as Weston under Wetherley and Stoneleigh should not be considered as it as would require development in the Greenbelt.

Growth of existing settlements should be the main option within the overall growth strategy. This enables and ensures the best use of existing infrastructure and sustainable patterns of development. Please see full response to this at Q-S7.2.

Growth of existing settlements should only be an option if it does NOT require development of Greenbelt land. Existing settlements which can be developed on non greenbelt land should be considered provided that any development of local infrastructure required to support the growth is part of the plan. In particular the development of the extensive area between Hunningham and Weston Under Wetherley would require the loss of a great deal of designated Greenbelt land and this should NOT be an option in the plan.

arguments 1,5,6 Growth will be necessary, but should be supported by a locally agreed housing needs analysis which is aligned to national policy. Land in the leamington Greeenbelt should not be developed because Local Authorities are not expected to meet local housing need where there are genuine constraints, including GreenBelt constraints. There are lots of positive reasons to protect the GreenBelt (particularly population mental well-being) and any development would be costly and overall detrimental.

Yes, growth of existing settlements in South Warwickshire (and on the edge of South Warwickshire) is imperative to deliver the overall growth targets, and achieve the Vision and overarching principles. The need for housing, affordable and specialist housing, jobs, green infrastructure, improved facilities and infrastructure is within the towns and villages. Those needs are best met sustainably adjacent to the settlements.

Growth of existing settlements may be suitable but not within the greenbelt. There are options to grow existing settlements outside the greenbelt so there can be no justification ("exceptional circumstances") for growing existing settlements in the greenbelt.

We responded NO to Q-S4.1 however we would support the development of brownfield sites within existing settlements, for example through infilling, converting existing properties and changing use from commercial and or retail to housing. All can increase the number of housing units without building on greenfield sites.

We responded NO to Q-S4.1 however we would support the development of brownfield sites within existing settlements, for example through infilling, converting existing properties and changing use from commercial and or retail to housing. All can increase the number of housing units without building on greenfield sites.

Growth will need to be supported by locally agreed housing needs analysis reflecting national policy. Local authorities should not seek to develop land, especially to accommodate the unmet needs of neigh neighbouring authorities, where there are genuine constraints, such as that provided by the necessary and genuine contribution of the greenbelt constraint. Once developed, this choice cannot be undone nor can the harm associated with it.