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

[Re growth of existing settlements] But there need to be clear preservation of all green belt land and there should be no ability of councils to override this which has been done so often in the past

Growth of existing settlements should only be considered where it does not require development in the greenbelt. Previous growth of existing settlements in non-greenbelt locations should not prevent further development and infrastructure should be invested to support further non-greenbelt development. Where growth of existing settlements cannot be assured without using greenbelt land, alternative solutions should be considered that do not involve development in greenbelt land.

These comments are the views of Sambourne Parish Council. We believe the areas of land to the south-west of the A448 between Studley and Sambourne, identified in the “Call for Sites”, should be discounted as areas for development for the following reasons: • Such development involves erosion of the Green Belt; • It causes the two villages of Sambourne and Studley to virtually coalesce; • The lanes through Sambourne already experience high volumes of traffic, particularly at peak commute times when the lanes are used as “rat-runs”. It is inevitable that development in these areas would introduce an unacceptable extra amount of traffic through this rural community to the great detriment of the living conditions of residents. • There would be a resultant loss of productive agricultural land and of wildlife habitats at a time when both are under stress.

I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non-greenbelt site.

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. 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. (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.

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 supported by local housing needs analysis that reflects national policy. Land in North Leamington should not be developed because there are green belt constraints. Development would be costly and detrimental to the wellbeing of residents in Leamington.

3.7 The Consultation Document at the start of this section notes that “South Warwickshire has a dispersed settlement pattern and is home to a significant number of existing settlements of varying sizes.” The Consultation Document goes on to note that as well as the 9 identified main towns, South Warwickshire has 82 villages and hundreds of hamlets. 3.8 It is stated that the SWLP will seek to maximise the capacity of existing urban areas to meet development needs to 2050, and this aim is entirely in compliance with the NPPF and is supported. However, given the dispersed settlement pattern of the area it must also be true that a significant number of residents of South Warwickshire live and work in these rural settlements, and therefore the spatial strategy must also have recognition of the needs of these places to see some development to sustain these communities into the future. 3.9 The Consultation Document goes on to discuss the concept of 20-minute neighbourhoods as a tool for the creation of sustainable communities, but notes that: “In rural areas, the implementation of the 20-minute neighbourhood poses a different set of challenges, including poor broadband and mobile phone coverage, inferior public transport provision and road transport, and a poor variety of employment opportunities. Housing affordability and isolation from and access to services are other issues facing many rural areas.” 3.10 The solutions suggested are either that market towns become 20-minute neighbourhoods to which residents of smaller villages must travel to access services, or the creation of rural networks of villages which develop services that people need accessible by local public transport. 3.11 With greater numbers of people working from home and looking to live in more rural areas, it is suggested that the option of concentrating services only in the larger market towns will simply lead to more trips to these locations, predominantly by car, to access day to day services, and the associated depletion of services in smaller settlements without a critical mass of people using them to sustain viability. We would argue that there is an opportunity to develop networks of rural settlements, sustained by accessibility to homes, jobs and services, with the larger market towns accessed when residents need to access higher level services that are more efficiently provided in the larger towns. Such an approach could complement the maximisation of the use of existing urban areas to accommodate strategic growth, but would enable rural settlements to accommodate modest growth and sustainable patterns of development. 3.12 To take Ettington as an example, the Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy identifies Ettington as a Category 3 Local Service Village. It is identified as such based on its size and the range of facilities available including a Spar shop, Primary School, pub, employment opportunities including the Ettington Hall Hotel and bus routes leading to Stratford and Banbury. The Core Strategy identified that Category 3 settlements should be able to accommodate 450 dwellings towards the total plan requirement. 3.13 We consider that the SWLP could take a similar approach to the role that settlements such as Ettington could play, forming part of a network of rural service centres joined by public transport and improvements to other modes of travel including cycling and walking. These settlements could therefore be locations for modest growth complementing their role as rural service centres and carrying forwards the strategy set out in the Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy.

There should be a presumption in favour of new sustainable settlements.

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. It should be remembered that 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.

Growth will be necessar but should be supported by locally agreed housing need 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 needs when there are genuine constraints, including Green Belt constraints. There are lots of positive reasons for protecting the Green Belt and detrimental overall. 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.

Yes [grow existing settlements] -Agreed, similar approach taken in North Warwickshire Local plan.

The green belt must not be built on or the boundary of green belt changed. I do not agree with 500 houses being built in WILMCOTE over and above infilling and making changes to the entry to the village. This plan shows the intension to go ahead anyway but getting a viability assessment to justify doing so. This is wrong, this must not go ahead as it is taking agricultural land which could be farmed for food and would completely over run the population of our small village, significantly increase traffic and safety and changing the historic nature of the village and canal. The village has already said NO to building by the railway station/canal TWICE and this 500 houses proposal would mean altering the entry over the bridge, which would mean significant historic change and worse safety issues on both side of the bridge. Any development requires full in person consultation and agreement with the village community.

Growth is necessary but should be supported by affordable housing, relevant infrastucture, public transport, services which are not addressed appropriately by proposed development north of Leamington. Cross town access to services, etc (super markets, train station, motorway for example) can already be difficult to control with congestion of traffic on most main routes, exacerbated by any bad weather. Existing structure of Leamington, the river and railways form restrictions to the amount this can be 'engineered' to improve accessibility and avoid further congestion (with corresponding detrimental effects on air quality, safety, carbon footprint). Recent and extensive engineering works have already been carried out to optimise some routes (Princes Drive/tip development) and improve safety (railway bridge work at the Rugby Road, Warwick New Road and leading through past Foundry woods). Surely there is a limit to feasible further improvement in this respect. Selected growth within available brownfield locations will feed into existing infrastructure rather than overloading it.

Any selected existing settlements should be large enough to provide all services and be capable of providing non vehicle accessibility. But new settlements seem an unlikely choice in the light of the response to V3-2 principally because affordable housing would dominate and conflict with the mixed tenure policy.

Infrastructure in older developments may not support additional demands for example on sewage treatment, water supply, electricity network or transport. Updating them further would be laudable, but is unlikley to happen without significant investment. Growth should be supported by locally agreed housing needs analysis for the surrounding area within south warwickshire.

Yes, growth of existing settlements in 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, green infrastructure, improved facilities and infrastructure is within the towns and villages. Those needs are best met sustainably adjacent to the settlements.

KENILWORTH The expansion around the outside of existing Kenilworth does not fit with your idea of 10-20 minutes walking distance from the town centre. The housing developments already under construction will provide pressure on the town centre, schools, health centres, parking, community facilities etc. Agricultural land growing food and providing wild life habitats will be lost, as well as trees and hedges, not to mention well-trodden public footpaths. Leamington Road roadside is just a short very visible example of unnecessary removal of trees and hedgerows - why does the housing there have to be so close to the road? The trees and hedges would have been beneficial to the new housing surely?! The additional housing may well be necessary but more consideration must be given to our biodiversity and green environment.

i am commentating on Whitnash where the current roads and bus routes would struggle with more building, all areas need improved road infrastructure and the current rail link through the town just passes it. A Whitnash Parkway station would be wonderful, but seems unlikely, lots of our current roads built since the 90s seem to cause problems for busses

Some growth of existing settlements must obviously play a part in the Plan. The big issue isn't addressed, however- how much should the overall quantum be? For example, is the green belt to remain sacrosanct and why, given its relative size? Should the sub-region continue to take overspill from the West Midlands? My view is not but if we do, then it should be through a relaxation of green belt policies close to the urban area. This seems the most sustainable approach.

Growth of existing settlements should be considered only if greenbelt land development can be avoided. Brownfield sites should be proactively sought for development so as not to further damage the environment and character of the locality.

Whilst there is recognition from the village community that more housing would benefit Wootton Wawen I am aware of a proposal which is a collaboration of a number of landowners working to provide added infra-structure to the village and a small conurbation of new housing including affordable, alms and private that would add to the growth of the village but also provide infra-structure such as a new school and community hub. This would be within the village and meet the '20 minute community'. At the same time there would be other landowners who have put some of thier green-belt forward as part of the call for sites which would add to the extention of the village beyond its current boundary's. There are ancient monuments along the Monarch Way opposite Wootton Hall, that I assume would be protected and the land around St Peter's Church overlooking the A3400 which would also be protected. It would be assumed that the canal would provide a natural boundary that would protect the ancient woodland beyond Yew Tree Farm.

[RE growth of existing settlements] Most are small, poor infrastructure and facilities to support further development. Any increase would severely impact character of settlements, damage environment, increase crime (because no activities so increase in vandalism - or in attempt to prevent this have unsuitable activities etc). I have seen this in my area. Planning erodes all differentiation of settlements, with just continuous development.

Any extension of the settlement in Wellesbourne should be within the boundary as growth anywhere else will go into the valuable green spaces around the village.

WE SHOULD REVIEW ALL EXISTING SETTLEMENTS FOR POSSIBLE GROWTH BEFORE WE PLAN NEW AREAS

[Re growth of existing settlements] THESE SHOULD BE REVIEWED BEFORE ONSIDERING NEW SETTLEMENTS

AND ALSO CONSIDER BROWNFIELD SITES AND REVIEW UNNECESSARY GREEN BELT

[RE growth of existing settlements] Agree with the principle but not at the expense of the Green Belt

The growth of existing settlements should only be considered if they are into brownfield sites.