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

I strongly object to a review of Green Belt boundaries. An area should maintain it's Green Belt status if it meets any one of the 5 purposes of Green Belt as outlined in the NPPF. The current Green Belt fulfils all 5 requirements. Our local towns are currently dominated by empty retail spaces, un-used buildings and car-parks. The council must focus on re-purposing our town centres to restore a vibrant and thriving community. Any requirement for additional housing can be addressed by redeveloping existing empty spaces within the town centres. It is not necessary to review the current Green Belt when a solution to the current housing short-fall already exists within the current town infrastructure.

It’s is imperative that the plan fully investigates all other options before starting a study to review Green Belt boundaries. The Green belt is a hugely important part of the character of Warwickshire and it is important to examine other options outside of the Green belt before looking to alter its boundaries.

We would like written confirmation that the process has examined all options to regenerate derelict and unused spaces within South Warwickshire, of which there are many, before the Green Belt review. Green spaces are paramount to mental well-being and so it would be wrong to damage more spaces, such as Milverton and Blackdown.

Objection. We need assurance that all other options are properly examined before even contemplating development on Green Belt spaces. Brownfield and urban development should be the focus, there are so many unused and derelict spaces that should be thoughtfully and sustainably developed. Plans should not be led by developers, but should look at human centred design and how to improve wellbeing by amplifying access to green space. HS2 has already decimated much of the Green Belt, so any more could further exacerbate the negative impact.

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. (As the Issues and Options consultation is proposing the study considers areas that no longer meet all five of the Green Belt purposes, for removal from the Green Belt)

The beauty of where we live is the fact we have a nice size town being so close to greenery and nature where we can go to feel better. It’s so important to look after ourselves but also nature nearby - the land is precious. Let’s make this town even better by better developing the countryside - not taking it away.

As a result of the pandemic, and the transition to online retailing; there are many empty retail premises, and also purpose built office blocks and technology buildings, which have become empty due to work from home strategies. Re-developed, these could provide a significant volume of residential and social housing etc. saving the Green Belt for its original intended purpose

Given that developments to the South of Leamington have access to major retailers (eg Sainsbury, Marks and Spencer, Asda, Morrisons within 100m of each other) and the green belt north of Leamington offers no such access, any encroachment on the existing green belt should be the lowest priority.

I cannot find a space for commenting on Chapter 4 issue S6 The fundamental reason why Green Belts were created have not changed. The South Warwickshire Local Pan process should fully examine all other options, including additional settlements outside the Green Belt, before even beginning a study to review the Green Belt boundaries in South Warwickshire. The Green belt should remain unchanged if any one of the five purposes of the Green Belt - as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework - are met

I am writing this letter to oppose some of the modifications proposed to review the Green Belt boundaries; in particular I support the absence of development on the North Leamington Green Belt around Old Milverton/Blackdown (henceforth referred to as OM&B). The Green Belt in this area meets the 5 key roles of Green Belt and is an excellent and well used cultural and exercise related resource. Recent developments in Kenilworth, Baginton and Lillington already take land from this essential Green Belt and further development on it would not be sustainable. I object to further such development whilst recognising the need for further housing requirements. I would like to make the following points:  A Joint Strategic Housing Needs Analysis was previously performed with Coventry City Council (CCC). As the review identified the necessity to increase the number of houses above those originally proposed I believe that there is sufficient non Green Belt land to accommodate this additional development;  This should be about Warwick District Council (WDC) and the ability of our district to accommodate the required housing for the next 15 years. We should not have to use additional district land to satisfy the shortfall of other councils;  The Revised Development Strategy has a fair distribution of new housing across the District. It is fair because there are still plans for new houses in the Green Belt at Thickthorn and Lillington as well as proposed development in villages;  The original Revised Development Strategy proposed that most of the new development be located close to where employment opportunities already exist (e.g. industrial parks to the south of Leamington and Warwick) this provides an opportunity for people to live close to their place of work, reducing or eliminating commuting for many people, reducing pollution and improving quality of life. There is ample space to build to the south of Leamington as the next nearest town is Banbury;  Focusing development in the South, in one broad area, ensures adequate public services can be provided and developed to meet the needs of the new population. These services can be designed to meet the exact needs of that new population and planned within easy walking and cycling distance, minimising traffic congestion;  The original Revised Development Strategy provided for improvement to the road network south of Leamington to relieve the existing congestion and to cater for the new development. The transport assessment clearly showed that development in the north would generate more traffic congestion in the district as it would have forced people to travel south to employment land, shopping and the M40;  It is possible that mitigation methods may need to be employed in the southern areas to reduce pollution and congestion but the work needed to do this would be less than for development in the north The protection of OM&B’s visual, historic and archaeological qualities is protected under paragraph 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework which states that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions. For years, Green Belts have protected agricultural and other undeveloped land. By doing this they encourage the re-generation of previously developed or ‘brown field’ land in urban areas. Without the strong protection Green Belts offer against many forms of development, much more farmland and woodland would be consumed by urban sprawl. With the increasing global pressures from climate change and population growth, our farmland and woodlands will become more valuable in future, not less. The proposed siting of the development is particularly ill-considered as it is on Green Belt land used by many villagers, local residents and tourists for recreation and walking dogs, and building here would both diminish the striking view into the centre of the village and be prominent from most angles within the village. The house designs are likely to be out of keeping with the village's strong historic character. While design issues might be solved by conditions or revised proposals, these could not remedy the siting problem. Furthermore, there is no need for this kind of open market housing in OM&B. Warwick District has more than five years' supply of housing land to meet the requirements of its emerging Local Plan. I believe that the proposed development of OM&B is a direct contravention of policy. The proposed development would significantly alter the fabric of the area and amount to serious ‘cramming’ by what is a low density road. The proposal allows very little space for landscaping and I believe that it would lead to gross over-development of the site. The proposed development would not result in a benefit in environmental and landscape terms, to the contrary it would lead to the loss of valuable green space. The land for development incorporates steeply sloping arable fields. Significant moisture, and drainage issues, during periods of sustained rainfall leads me to have concerns about the impact of the proposed development on surrounding properties in terms of drainage as well as ground stability. As climate change has demonstrated, through incidents of flooding throughout England, developing these proposed sites is likely to accentuate the risk of localised flooding as the surface water will not have adequate land to drain in to, and man-made drainage systems have been proven to not cope with heavy and sustained rainfall. In the face of climate change, this land is likely to have an increasingly significant role in storing carbon and preventing flooding. The proposed site of development, as ear-marked in the (future) safe-guarded land, is at such an angle that the primary amenity area of our garden would be severely overlooked from the top rooms of the new development, likely to result in a serious invasion of our privacy. On this latter point, I believe that the proposed development is a direct contravention of the District Wide Local Plan. The design of the proposed development does not afford adequate privacy for the occupants of our home or of adjacent residential properties, particularly with regard to their right to the quiet enjoyment of garden amenities. I would urge you to consider the responsibilities under the Human Rights Act in particular Protocol 1, Article 1 which states that a person has the right to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions which includes the home and other land. I believe that the proposed development would have a dominating impact on us and our right to the quiet enjoyment of our property. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act also states that a person has the substantive right to respect for their private and family life. In many cases there is likely to be a significant overlap between Article 8 and Protocol 1, Article 1. However, I perceive this right (Protocol 1, Article 1) to be wider than Article 8 in the sense that it applies to the peaceful enjoyment of all of a person’s possessions and not merely to his home. This could include land (garden). The grant or refusal of planning permission will frequently affect the lives, homes and property of others. Notably the owners and occupiers of neighbouring properties, all of whom have the right to respect for their home and a right for the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. This is the right that will be threatened through the proposed development of Old Milverton and Blackdown. Article 8 gives everyone the ‘right to respect’ for his or her home, for example for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals and for the protection of the rights or freedoms of others. This last element provides scope for planning policy which may supersede the freedom of the individual in the interests of the public. However, the legal precedent is set out in the case of Britton vs SOS whereby the courts reappraised the purpose of the law and concluded that the protection of the countryside falls within the interests of Article 8 (2). Private and family life therefore encompasses not only the home but also the surroundings. In this instance, other sites within the boundaries of CCC and secondarily within WDC, which are deemed to be lower value land, should be considered. It should not bend to the pressure that is undoubtedly brought to bear, and lobbied for, by the interests of developers. Continuing the references to policy, Government Planning Policy Statement PPS1, Paragraphs 17 – 19 states “Government is committed to protecting and enhancing the quality of the natural and historic environment, in both rural and urban areas. Planning policies should seek to protect and enhance the quality, character and amenity value of the countryside and urban areas as a whole. A high level of protection should be given to most valued townscapes and landscapes, wildlife habitats and natural resources.” The proposed development to cope with another council’s (Coventry) housing shortage is counter-intuitive to this because: 1. It is contrary to Green Belt policies 1 (no ‘very special circumstances’) and 2 (‘openness’); 2. The proposed development will place extra burdens on the OM&B infrastructure, with the local infant school(s) already at full capacity and limited amenities or facilities within the immediate vicinity; 3. The site will increase traffic on an already busy road, near a sharp bend (Old Milverton Road), with no pavements or street lights, hence creating even more of a risk for pedestrians and drivers (an extra 2,500+ vehicles are planned for this site); 4. There are NO special circumstances for this proposed site in a green belt area Under the National Planning Policy Framework: 1. greenbelt is to be protected and requires exceptional circumstances to be built on. There is nothing exceptional about the council's plans to build on unspoilt land to meet their current housing target when there are other lower value sites that are not included in the plan. WDC, in cooperation with CCC, has assessed sites on the edge of Coventry as being of lower Green Belt value; 2. brown field sites are to be prioritised over the development of green field and certainly greenbelt sites, but these plans offer up greenbelt in advance of brown field site development or lower value greenbelt sites; 3. merging of communities is to be prevented, yet development of these sites will lose the individual identities currently held between Old Milverton, Leamington, Warwick and Kenilworth; 4. infrastructure must come first, yet the outline ideas to provide infrastructure are either not in place, or are not time-lined in advance of the proposed developments. There are currently no plans to develop new healthcare with these massive scale extensions of population; 5. target level of housing development within the plans should be capped in line with the capacity of brown field sites to accommodate it, to protect greenbelt - yet these plans significantly exceed it There are some other considerations over the plan to build houses in the OM&B vicinity: Development Plan Policies:  I understand that it is only in exceptional cases that personal circumstances may be relevant to planning decisions. However, the Convention puts the rights of the individual first on the basis that the rights of the individual are paramount unless there is justification in the public interest. This justification, and the proof of exceptional circumstances, has not been provided to merit development upon the Green Belt;  The current housing target which drives the need to develop on the greenbelt is flawed and needs to be changed. It is based on outdated, over inflated housing targets and needs to be brought in line to the latest 2014 figures (from the ONS), which show a need significantly fewer new homes; Impact on highway safety and traffic:  This section of A452 near Blackdown is one of the most congested and dangerous between Kenilworth and Leamington; adding over a thousand extra houses will cause gridlock and increase accidents within this over-burdened area; Conservation of the natural environment:  The above sites are host to different species and an array of wildlife that will perish as a result of the proposed development;  The site is used both as working agricultural land and as land for which exercise - which provide the community a meaningful way to connect with the natural environment; In conclusion, the exclusion of development in the North Leamington Green Belt enables the plan to comply with the NPPF. The NPPF and the 2015 Conservative Manifesto stated clearly that Ministers attach great importance to the Green Belt and will maintain existing levels of protection. In March 2015, the Prime Minister declared that protecting the Green Belt is ‘paramount’. Several of the sites identified in the plan are contrary to such policies and declarations. Whilst I acknowledge that WDC has to develop, it needs to be developed in a structured fashion, and development needs to be in the right place. North Leamington, and the district as a whole, should not have to use its land to fulfil a significant proportion of the housing requirements of other councils. There is significant opposition across the district as it currently stands to cope with its own housing requirements. To build a further 6,000 houses would be in contravention of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act as upheld in Britton vs SOS.

Greenbelt is critical for recreation, wildlife and residents wellbeing. Farming provision is becoming ever more important in todays need for Britain's food security - we must invest and protect this rapidly dwindling landscape.

Green belt boundaries should not be changed and should be kept as Green Belt for the greater good of the Warwickshire people who need the countryside for healthy living / visiting / exercise, especially with so few green spaces and parks in and around the town centres.

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.

An area should maintain its Green Belt status if it meets ANY ONE of the 5 purposes of the Green Belt, as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework. The SW 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 Bekt boundaries in South Warwickshire

As the fertility rate in the UK is reducing & is now down to 1.56 and the birth rate is down to 12 per 1000 people the need for rapidly growing development seems counter intuitive. As most of the baby boomer generation bubble will have passed away before 2050 I would only see the population shrinking in the long term. Therefore the need for housing will reduce generally in the UK unless their is continued mass migration into the UK, however this also seems to be counter intuitive to the need to reduce emissions & reduce global warming. A reducing population will bring automatic reductions to climate change and as people in the UK can transition to greener energy & travel easier than people in third world countries then this would seem like a plus all round.

The impact of HS2 locally and consequently the loss of greenbelt land , precious carbon-capturing natural habitats and the impact on nature cannot be under estimated. If the green belt is to be further eroded by unnecessary development it would surely be a step too far. All other options should be fully examined including new settlement options outside of the Green Belt , before any studies or proposals should be made to review the Green Belt boundaries in South Warwickshire.,

I strongly object to development in the Green belt. I think the Blackdown and Old Milverton area of which I am familar, meets all 5 purposes in the National planning policy framework. It particularly meets b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; and to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. So it is essential to maintain this Green Belt area. There are only a few fields between North Leamington and Kenilworth and only a few fields between Kenilworth and Coventry. If development is not checked, there is a great danger of the historic towns of Kenilworth and Royal Leamington Spa becoming part of a new Greater Coventry area

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

I think the retention of green spaces is very important for people’s physical and mental health. Also, it would be disastrous if towns and villages merged into one another losing a sense of individuality and belonging to a particular location. Once Green Belt land is lost it is gone for ever with dire consequences for wild life and a variety of native plants which flourish in the very Green Belt land around North Leamington which is under threat.

Objection to issue S6: Review of Green Belt Boundaries. The plan should examine all alternative options before starting any study to review the green belt boundaries and any area should maintain its green belt status if it meets any one of the five purposes defined in the National planning policy framework.

Make provision for rented accommodation in all developments. Infilling better than new settlements

The SWLP 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 one of the 5 purposes of green belt as designed in the national planning policy framework and south Warwickshire local plan process should fully examine all other options before starting a study to review green belt boundaries

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. 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.

Changes to Green Belt boundaries should not be developer-led. The South Warwickshire Local Plan process should fully examine all other options, including new settlement areas outside the Green Belt, before starting a study to review Green Belt boundaries in South Warwickshire. The National Planning Policy Framework defines that an area should maintain its Green Belt status if it meets any one of the 5 purposes of Green Belt.

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. An area should maintain its Green Belt status if if its meets ANY ONE of the 5 purposes of Green Belt, as defined by NPPF. The issues and options consultation is proposing the study considers areas that no longer meet all five of the Green Belt purposes, for removal from the Green Belt. The proposed study to consider areas for removal from the Green Belt is inconsistent with the vision and strategy. In particular, it fails to meet the following strategic objectives: A healthy, safe and inclusive South Warwickshire - it will create noise, congestion, pollution, not be carbon neutral, will adversely affect the lives of those living in the area Improving the health, safety and quality of life of our communities - it will create a more dangerous environment and reduce the quality of life of our communities It will not creating healthy places for all sections of the community, which contribute to physical and mental wellbeing, combat loneliness and isolation, lower levels of pollution, and are free of crime and the fear of crime. Indeed, it will have precisely the opposite effect. It will take away leisure opportunities (there are footpaths running through the green belt, enjoyed by those who wish to walk in the countryside), thereby reducing physical and mental wellbeing. Also building on the land will increase pollution and the risk of crime will doubtless increase (it certainly won't reduce!) The strategy further desires: Increasing and improving access to sustainable and active travel options that connect people to centres, jobs, education, cultural facilities, green spaces and the countryside. By destroying the green belt, you are removing the green spaces and countryside that you wish to preserve. Inconsistent wibble! Finally, you want: A biodiverse and environmentally resilient South Warwickshire Protecting and enhancing our environmental assets Protecting what already exists and maximising opportunities for enhancement including improvements to the green space network through tree planting and other biodiversity initiatives. The consultation singularly fails to recognise that changing green belt boundaries will have precisely the opposite effect of that which the council has highlighted as being a strategic objective.

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 such as brown field sites etc. An area should maintain its Green belt status if it meets any one of the five purposes of Green Belt, as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Green belts are a valuable resource to the community, and are only there because they have been protected before there it is the duty of this and future consultations to protect them for the future. Therefore before considering any alteration to them all options that do not involve changing them should be considered before. Thank you

Our concern as a Parish Council is that you adopt a brownfield first approach to all development in order to protect our green spaces. We would also like the greenbelt to be maintained and only considered for development as a last resort

1. As a general comment, an area should maintain its green belt status if it meats any one of the 5 purposes of Green Belt, as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework. 2. Proposals to build on the green belt north of Leamington were rejected within-in the last 6 years. What has changed and can’t planners leave decisions already made to focus on real opportunities and provide stability for residents and businesses to conduct their lives and plans. 3. The area between Old Milverton, Blackmore and Leamington is of considerable scenic, ecological and agricultural value, enjoyed by walkers and amblers from across the region. Let’s protect some sustainability in these aras.