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

There are many sites being developed and many houses built around the town, the use of green belt land should be the last option considered, there is a responsibility to maintain and manage green belt in order to provide quality of life for those who wish to enjoy it. The area of green belt provides many advantages to the style, culture and quality of the area.

Green belt land is required to assist with the UK being sustainable, for growing crops reducing our dependency on other countries. Before considering the development of greenbelt land around Leamington Spa, ALL alternatives should be investiagated.

The first three purposes for the Green Belt, as set out in the National Planning Policy, are a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; Any encroachment on to the Green Belt will run counter to these agreed purposes, and would result in the very things that the Green Belt was set up to achieve. It is nonsensical to even consider encroaching on the Green Belt without fully looking at, and documenting, options that are outside the Green Belt.

Create a new village rather than keep bolting on

This consultation process is flawed and has not followed national guidance to put local people at the heart of the planning process, as there should have been a questions/feedback section after 'Chapter 4 Issue S6 A Review of Greenbelt Boundaries' so all those affected could be heard and their views fully considered - as also stated in the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement. The Green Belt Boundaries review should only be carried out after all other options have been fully explored including Brownfield first and new settlements outside of the Greenbelt. The Green Belt Boundaries review incorrectly references the NPPF as it states it will 'consider whether there are any areas which no longer meet all five of the Green Belt purposes and could be removed' - nowhere in the NPPF does it state that Green Belt designation is dependent on areas meeting all five purposes - indeed any one purpose could be a legitimate purpose.

The concept of Green Belt land exists for a reason - to ensure a balanced and healthy environment for future generations...preserving diversity of landscape and use, and ensuring greater national resilience by doing so. In short, Green Belt land should remain protected if it meets any one of the 5 purposes assigned to Green Belt land as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework. Failure to uphold this provision threatens to make the whole concept of Green Belt land meaningless, as without a commitment to protect in light of one criteria a horse and cart will progressively be driven through the concept in planning applications. What Green land will we have left? It is shocking to me that in the Issues and Options consultation that there is a proposal to consider removing areas that no longer meet ALL FIVE of the Green Belt purposes from the Green Belt. What justification is there for setting the bar so high? A very poor judgement call if this is the criteria used and a shocking standard to set now and for the future. Also, when considering Green Belt development and boundaries in South Warwickshire, have all other options been considered effectively enough. Surely other options need exhausting first, for new settlement options outside of the Green Belt. Starting to change the way the notion of how Green Belt is applied before exhausting non-Green belt options as they are defined now, seems to put the cart before the horse - to put it mildly!

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.

The Strategy should prioritise the use of non-Green Belt land for new settlements. Only when such options have been fully examined and utilised should a review be undertaken of Green Belt boundaries. The Strategy should commit to endorsing in full all of the five purposes of the Green Belt as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. Proposals for development or Green Belt boundary change which conflict in a significant way with any of these purposes should not be considered.

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. All other options should be fully examined before boundaries are reviewed.

The National Planning Policy Framework is clear in it's guidance that an area of Green belt should retain it's status if it meets ANY ONE of the five purposes of Green Belt. These are; To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns And to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The issues and options consultation proposes that existing green belt boundaries are redrawn if the area in question no longer meets ALL FIVE of the defined purposes of green belt. Clearly this is contrary to NPPF guidance and any redrawing of green belt boundaries would result in a legally unsound Local Plan. This would give rise to considerable delays in the adoption of the new Local Plan under examination by Approved Inspectors and place increased pressure on the authority. Furthermore, it's clear that the Green belt status of land around North Leamington Spa perform wells in protecting urban sprawl and helps provide clear delineation between Leamington and Kenilworth (which in itself is in danger of merging with neighbouring Coventry). North Leamington boasts an array of character and heritage assets which would be significantly harmed by the removal of the green belt status it currently enjoys. Additionally, it remains evident that land to the south of Leamington Spa, which sits outside of the green belt, has ample scope to meet housing demand, as well as already benefitting from infrastructure upgrade and reinforcement as a result of the current Local Plan. Deviations from the current plan are without doubt unsustainable given the lack of infrastructure to North Leamington. Consequently, the Local Plan process should address it's focus to development opportunities outside of the Green Belt with those charged with with protecting the town's best interests protecting it's special character.

I would like to object to the proposes South Warwickshire Local Plan. If this is passed for development, trees and habitat, i.e. hedges will be destroyed. Since the Covid epidemic (which is still on-going) people are using the bridleways for walking and to ease their mental health issues. There are more people walking over the fields since the Covid pandemic. Where would they go? Since the war in Ukraine some crops have been hard to obtain, so we surely need as many fields as we can get to grow crops for the benefit of the UK market. It was always my understanding that Green Belt land was sacred and would never be built on. Is this no longer the case? The maps you have attached to this report are very unclear as they do not show exactly which areas/fields are being considered for development. This is also (to my knowledge) the second time we have had to object to development on the Green Belt. Are previous objections not enough to stop BUILDING ON GREEN BELT LAND. This is just environmental vandalism. What happened to Warwickshire's green and pleasant land. I am sure there are plenty of brown field sites that could be explored. There is also the need for the infrastructure to be closely looked at. Schools, sewer pipes and gas and electricity supplies, to name but a few.

I strongly object to the development of even more green belt land, especially if even more shoddily built houses are planned to be erected. The planners have created absolute chaos and gridlock in South Warwick and so cannot be trusted to make workable decisions in North Leamington. I strongly object to further development in Milverton and Blackdown as the current road network is already grossly overloaded and cannot take even more traffic. Building cycle lanes is largely a complete waste of money as they are generally ignored by the cyclists.

An area should maintain its current Green Belt status if it meets any one of the 5 purposes of Green Belt as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework.

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. By this standard the 5 options are unacceptable. We have had an excessive level of activity with HS2 in the East and the buildings to the South of Warwick and Leamington which have substantially altered the biological and structural integrity of these areas. There is a major risk of creating too large a conurbation in the county which will fracture our infra structure (roads, drainage, energy supplies, amenities and health provisions). Can we afford such expenditure at this time? Other options outside the Green Belt need to be considered.

This development is fundamentally wrong and immoral. The green belt must be protected for future generations and not eroded to use for housing at a time there are many empty properties in the town. If building on this green belt area is allowed to continue then it wont be long before Leamington and Kenilworth simply merge into one, making a mini conurbation of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth Yes there is a need housing, but there are other options for use of land not within a green belt area and these should be considered first, All green belt areas must be protected at all cost, not just be an easy option for developers. To act in such a way is outrageous and in complete contradiction of the National Planning Policy Framework

I agree with the plan's Vision and Strategic objectives and would accept small developments on agricultural land in Weston-u-Wetherley; so long as new houses blend in with those already here and do not spoil anyone's rural views. The same for commercial premises which should be small and whose work should be professional or craft based and employ local people. This development is too large, however, and I oppose it. M.C.D. Arnold

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. The green belt exists to to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another, to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Warwick and Leamington have pretty much merged already - there is no good reason for the same to happen to Leamington and Kenilworth when there are numerous villages to the south of Leamington serviced by rail and bus networks -capacity should increase there, as well as due consideration being given to the intensification of dwellings in central Leamington and Warwick as retail outlets decline. For example land & properties in Leamington Old Town have stood vacant for years whilst new properties are built elsewhere. Consideration should also be given to Park and Ride shuttle routes into Leamington and Warwick, leveraging existing Parkway stations. As new development continues to the south of the towns the weight of traffic on already congested road networks will become unbsustainable.

The South Warwickshire Local Plan Process must 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 must 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.

New settlement options outside of the greenbelt should be explored before planning on the Leamington greenbelt takes place. The significant expansion of the Leamington / Warwick conurbation with the construction of homes extending ‘Warwick Gates’ is not yet complete. If affordable housing is required it should be planned in to the existing expansion. With HS2 and ongoing residential expansions removing so much of the countryside around Leamington, removing what little land is left on the outskirts of the town seems like an unnecessary burden when other towns in Warwickshire have seen relatively limited growth.

Proposed Review of Green Belt Boundaries: If the reason for the review is potentially to extend the Green Belt I am in favour of the review. However, if, as suspected, the review will consider re-drawing the boundaries to allow the development of some existing Green Belt land I wish to object in the strongest possible terms. The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world, a situation of which we should all be ashamed. Statistics show that currently one in seven native species is facing imminent extinction, and a further 40 per cent are in serious decline. This decline must be stopped and reversed now, before it is simply too late. Whilst acknowledging the need for further social and affordable housing, it is unthinkable that the Council should consider reducing the Green Belt to release land for development. Instead I would urge a much less drastic use of options at its disposal. As we are all aware, there are plenty of brown-field sites and other areas not within the Green Belt boundaries which could and should be considered. In addition, there is a need to acknowledge that with the immense increase of on-line shopping many premises that have in the past been retail units are never again going to be needed for retail purposes. Instead of our high streets and local shopping areas continuing to have many retail units lying empty, creating a depressed and increasingly derelict appearance, change of use to allow their conversion into housing units, especially social housing, should be easily available. This would transform the areas into a healthy mix of retail and residential, and would be particularly advantageous for those who are unable for whatever reason to travel far for their basic needs. In summary, I would strongly urge the Council to hold the needs for housing and for the protection of nature in balance, and only to take decisions that are beneficial to the one without at the same time compromising the other.

The South Warwickshire Local Plan Process should fully examine all other options, including settlement options outside the Green Belt, before starting a study to review Green Belt boundaries in South Warwickshire. Specifically, allotments within the Gren Belt provide a significant amenity for many local residents. Allotments provide exercise, the opportunity to meet fellow allotment holders and help to ensure individual's mental health and wellbeing. Allotments also contribute to the pleasant environment around Leamington Spa.

The green belt areas in Warwickshire should be preserved and the easy option of developing them should not be taken. Instead all other options should be examined for potential development. The green belt provides local residents with green space to enjoy which has a positive impact on health and mental well being and this should be preserved for this and future generations and for the benefit of local wildlife. An area should keep its green belt status if it meets any one of the purposes set out in National Planning Policy Framework and should provide a natural definition between local towns and villages to guard against urban sprawl.

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.

The role of the green belt has not changed since it was designated Massive impact of HS2 already on the Green Belt. South Warwickshire Local Plan Process should seek to curtail further reduction on the Green Belt. Town centre areas should be prioritised for residential development. South Warwickshire Local Plan Process is an opportunity to reduce road use rather than increase it which inevitably happens with out-of-town sites, such as the Green Belt. Available land outside the green belt

The SWLP should examine all other options fully, including new settlements outside 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 AT LEAST ONE of the five purposes of Green Belt, as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework.

I believe the Green Belt should be retained for present and future generations as an essential resource to benefit all. Its loss or reduction would be detrimental to present and future generations quality of life. Access to and use of Green Belt has previously been shown to benefit the mental health of the general population. It is a finite resource and its retention should be the default position. All other settlement options should be exhausted before using the Green Belt is even considered. The strategy being considered would actually be contrary to all five criteria for which the Green Belt protection exists.

I am concerned that the Green Belt is not given sufficient weight in the Issues and Options Consultation on the South Warwickshire Local Plan. I am concerned about the statistics in Chapter 4, issue S6 that state that 54% of respondents to the first consultation, Scoping and Call for Sites, supported “exploration for growth opportunities” in the Green Belt. The planning team appear to be using this as one of the justifications for reviewing Green Belt boundaries. However, 35% of respondents to that consultation were developers and 10% were businesses or landowners, suggesting that only a small proportion of other respondents were in favour. The heavy weighting towards groups with vested interests should not used as justification. All five spatial growth options involve some development in the Green Belt. It is even more unfortunate that all of them refer to the Green Belt to the North of Leamington as an area of ‘significant urban extension’. This all appears to ignore the legitimate function served by the Green Belt, and is contrary to very recent Government announcements, the 2015 green belt review and the detailed 2017 response by the Planning Inspector.

Issue 9 refers to settlement boundaries and lists them as including NDPs. Please also add Parish Plans to this list. I live in a category 4 village in Stratford District and we were advised that a NDP would be disproportionate for such a small village but a Parish Plan would be appropriate. We created on and it has been adopted by SDC. It includes our Built up Area Boundary - agreed by SDC. We would like to retain that boundary please.

I strongly object to any development in and around the Leamington Spa area. I live on the edge of Leamington and my house overlooks allotments and open farmland. I feel blessed to live in such a lovely location, and the wildlife I see daily from my back windows is a treat; as well as the regular garden birds I regularly see a green woodpecker, and a few times I have seen a sparrowhalk. An area crying out for development is the old Stoneleigh Show Ground, where there are many empty buildings. Please please please reconsider this wonderful peaceful unspoilt area of Warwickshire countryside.

I see there is no opportunity to comment on Issue S6 - A review of Green Belt Boundaries. There are valid reasons why Green Belt land should be protected, and particular factors described elsewhere in this response describe why that protection should be applied to the Green Belt in North Leamington. However, the consultation is silent on this subject, the implication being that this matter has decided, and the intention is to impose the changes proposed without scrutiny.