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

Option S2-C: Intensification 10. Intensification is a way to optimise brownfield land and realise its effectiveness. However, William Davis consider that this matter should be dealt with by the SWLP Part 2 Local Plan or Neighbourhood Plans if relevant, so that the implications of applying an intensification policy to a particular area can be assessed in terms of character and deliverability, which are key factors to consider. 11. Intensification is challenging and requires evidence around viability and deliverability before it can be considered to form part of the supply, and as such any intensification potential in the windfall allowance should be avoided.

Option S2-C: Intensification 16. Intensification is a way to optimise brownfield land and realise its effectiveness. However, HLM consider that this matter should be dealt with by the SWLP Part 2 Local Plan or Neighbourhood Plans if relevant, so that the implications of applying an intensification policy to a particular area can be assessed in terms of character and deliverability, which are key factors to consider. 17. Intensification is challenging and requires evidence around viability and deliverability before it can be considered to form part of the supply, and as such any intensification potential in the windfall allowance should be avoided.

I am writing to you with my comments in respect of the South Warwickshire Local Plan and the potential effects it may have on the small town I live in. I am disappointed that we seem to have been given so little time to consider and respond to this proposal. I have detailed below the key reasons I believe that need to be considered when reviewing this proposal and whilst I am fully in support of proportionate and reasonable growth for all towns I think the current suggested sites and numbers of houses for Henley in Arden are not appropriate. I do hope these points are fully considered and I look forward to hearing from you further. Regards Pip Abercromby FCA 1. USING THE GREEN BELT INCORRECTLY TO RESOLVE STRUCTURAL PLANNING PROBLEMS: The proposed development in Henley-in-Arden uses development in the Green Belt incorrectly to resolve structural planning problems in the district. Henley lies between two much larger urban developments in a section of Green Belt land which serves to prevent urban sprawl extending such that the developed envelopes extend to such an extent that they join. To the south, there is extensive white space on the outskirts of Stratford upon Avon, for example, which is ideally suited to development that meets the needs of a modern economy that is responsive to the environmental demands and the new working patterns that have emerged as imperatives in recent years. Development of brownfield sites around existing urban envelopes is consistent with modern planning policy that co-locates living, working and leisure spaces, and preserves the integrity of the nearby Green Belt and all of its benefits. Stratford District Council itself highlights the evidence that supports this argument: “Unemployment across the District is low, with 0.3% of workers claiming jobseekers allowance in May 2016. This is lower than the UK average (1.8%) and West Midlands average (2.2%). There is an imbalance between the number of jobs in the District and its working population. An increasing number of residents commute to higher paid employment outside the District, while lower paid jobs are often filled by people coming into the District from adjoining areas. These commuting patterns impose significant pressures on the road network. Employers in and around Stratford-upon-Avon can struggle to recruit staff into lower paid and part time roles and cite the absence of affordable commuting options, particularly outside of peak travel times, as a barrier to filling vacancies.” 2. ERODES THE COMMITMENT TO THE PRESERVATION OF THE GREEN BELT The West Midlands Green Belt wraps around Birmingham, the Black Country and Coventry and extends to a ring of towns beyond the conurbation. Within Stratford-on-Avon District it stretches from the northern edge of Stratford-upon-Avon, along the A46 westwards and the A439 eastwards up to the District boundary with Redditch (apart from small areas of land to the west of Mappleborough Green), Bromsgrove, Solihull and Warwick. The settlements of Alcester, Henley and Studley are excluded from the Green Belt. Commitments from Stratford and Warwick in the existing planning frameworks reiterate a commitment to the integrity of the Green Belt and the prevailing government guidance and policy in respect of the Green Belt. It is critical that the Green Belt around Henley is preserved for its environmental benefits and the health and social benefits that it brings to residents. The proposed development is inconsistent with commitments made in the existing planning policies. 3. SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITATIONS AND CONSTRAINTS Traffic Limitations: Existing Plans to Match funding has been secured to calm traffic on the High Street in an initiative to impose during the first six months of 2023 a 20 mph speed limit on the High Street and commuter ‘rat run’ cul de sac roads that lead off the main artery. It is counterintuitive to simultaneously restrict the flow of traffic through the town – a demonstrated need in response to recent traffic safety issues – and at the same time expand the volume of traffic resulting from increased housing development around the town. Poor Bus Links: The bus and train infrastructure is barely sufficient to sustain the existing population, before considering an additional 2,000 residents which might result from the proposed development. The X20 bus service runs 12 buses a day on a weekday and covers the North – South route between Stratford and Solihull. Bus passengers required to travel East – West to Redditch and Warwick are required to travel to the end of the north or south routes and then change to another service. Stratford District Council agree – the 2018 SDC Transport Strategy reports that “A key barrier to bus use is journey length and issues of punctuality and service reliability which are exacerbated in Stratford-upon-Avon by congestion”, which is central to the operation of any bus routing to service Henley-in-Arden. Further, SDC reports that “bus passenger facilities … are currently insufficient for the volume of passengers….”. Impact of Closure of the M40 and other Congestion: With the current level of housing, any closure of the M40 south of the M42 junction leads to the diversion of traffic off the motorway and through the town, predominantly using the north-south axis along the High Street. Statistics show that the M40 is the subject of a temporary closure between 3 and 4 times a year. Roadworks anywhere in the town – typically driven by servicing the antiquated drainage system and other infrastructure – currently creates significant delays in the town. Additional development will have an adverse impact on the existing streetscape within Henley. Inability to Expand or Widen Existing Roads to Accommodate Traffic: Henley-in–Arden is a medieval market town with a strong architectural heritage reflected in the North – South road axis and the listed buildings which line the A3400 and High Street. The listed buildings which exist along the main roads in the town preclude any expansion or widening of the road to accommodate increased volumes of traffic arising from increased development and volume of housing. Road Safety: An increase in development in or around Henley-in-Arden will lead to an increase in traffic of all modes to service population movement around a market town based around two intersecting roads. A brief review of the traffic accident statistics for Henley in Arden for the last five years shows 25 incidents in the Henley-in-Arden area, one of which is classed as fatal and five of which are classed as serious, all of which centre on the High Street and the crossroads at the South of the town. An increase in population of the scale proposed by the draft Plan would inevitably lead to an increase in road traffic casualties. Car Parking: Car parking is an acknowledged problem in Henley-in-Arden, where the existing historic housing prevents the development of extensive car parking and on-street parking on the High Street predominates and cars have been forced into small off-street parking facilities – such as that behind the Co-op store or even worse they park on the double yellow lines frequently creating a dangerous piece of road for both car users and pedestrians alike. The proposed plan makes no accommodation for the resultant car traffic that would be generated by extensive development around the town. Air Quality and the Environment: Development of the scale proposed will have a disproportionate and adverse impact on air quality and other factors driven by additional traffic from the aggressive development proposed by the town. Propensity to Flooding: Henley-in-Arden is famously susceptible to flooding, and certainly more so than other sites and locations proposed in the plan. The SFRA highlights that Henley is one of the most sensitive areas in the Stratford District to the fluvial impacts of climate change. The town rests at the base of a hilly catchment area providing an obvious outlet for when the River Alne floods, as it did most notably in memory in 2007. Additional development would increase the impact of that flooding and place greater demands on the surrounding environment in the event of flooding. No Potential to Future Proof the Infrastructure: There is no obvious solution to the problem of future-proofing any development proposed in Henley-in-Arden. Ageing water and sewerage infrastructure means that there is little chance of expansion or the development of the infrastructure of the future, particularly electric charging points for cars and the support of renewables. 4. LOCAL SERVICES ARE INADEQUATE TO SUPPORT PLANNED EXPANSION: An increase in the housing stock in Henley-in-Arden such as that proposed in the draft Plan would require additional infrastructure investment, most obviously in schools and medical facilities. Henley in Arden School is part of the Arden Multi-Academy Trust. It has a capacity of 700 pupils and yet already has 710 pupils enrolled. Expansion would inevitably be necessary to sustain development of the extent proposed and local government would need to provide funds. The existing medical practice moved from the High Street to the existing site in 1990, and access is via a footpath from the High Street or via car through a housing estate to a council run car park. Again, the site of the existing facility and the lack of potential for expansion into surrounding space means that expansion in Henley-in-Arden would require a new medical facility in a new location. Any expansion of either of these facilities or the commission of new sites would inevitably lead to an increase in the risk of road, pedestrian and traffic incidents as a direct result of the crossroads and road configuration which dominates the town. 5. ABSENCE OF A FOCUS ON LOCALISM: The outline proposals make no reference to even the sense of the principles of localism in the Henley-in-Arden community and run contrary to local sentiment. Those responsible for the development of the plan must provide opportunities for communities to influence decision-making, support placemaking and. deliver services that reflect local requirements. The scale of the development proposed is completely inconsistent with the scale of the existing town and the development of the population to date. Between 1975 and 2015, the population of Henley grew by 14.3%, and grew even more strongly in later years where between 2000 and 2015, it grew by 10.2%. Using data and projections from 1. JRC (European Commission's Joint Research Centre) work on the GHS built-up grid and 2. CIESIN (Center for International Earth Science Information Network), the population in 2022, stood at 2,571. Assuming an average of 3.5 heads occupying a lower estimate of 500 additional houses in Henley-in-Arden as proposed in the Plan, the population of the town would grow by 68%, which is completely disproportionate development. The plan ignores Stratford Council’s own observations about the importance of Henley’s heritage and the impact of further development upon it. The Heritage and Settlement Sensitivity Assessment for Warwick and Stratford-on-Avon Local Plan of September 2022 observes that “The setting of some of (the) assets, particularly the castle and church, are still currently experienced within the historic open agricultural landscape. It is therefore recommended that development of the land beyond the north-eastern edge of the settlement should be avoided.” There are also similar observations about the land to the south-east and south-west of the town which are completely contrary to the scale of the development proposed in the plan. Similarly, there is little consideration of the sites north of the Warwick Road (reference HEN.02 in the Stratford Heritage Assessment) where the RED assessment risks of both harm to surviving Ridge and Furrow and harm to archaeological monuments runs contrary to the proposed sites offered for development to the East of the town. The economy of Stratford upon Avon is delicately dependent on visitors and those in search of rural tourism – the strength of demand is such that the town has its own Heritage Centre for visitors and queues for the locally-made ice cream regularly generate queues that extend up the High Street. Extensive development of the type which is proposed would likely jeopardise local businesses and a tourism-centred town: Solihull was originally a pleasant town in the Green Belt – literally ‘Urbs in Rure’ – but development without reference to local concerns has let it evolve into something much different. 6. INFRASTRUCTURE HAS ALREADY BEEN STRETCHED BY UNCONTROLLED DEVELOPMENT TO DATE Existing brownfield infill within the town has occurred over previous years without any improvement in the infrastructure within the local area. Stratford District Council agree and go further, commenting on its impact on the environment: “Henley-in-Arden has had modern development to the west and southeast which has partially enclosed and eroded its value and sense of place on those sides of the settlement.” (Settlement Sensitivity Assessment, 2022). The legacy infrastructure has already been stretched by infill development – further development would be unsustainable. References: 1. Traffic calming: https://www.stratford-herald.com/news/henley-in-arden-to-get-20mph-speed-limit-along-high-street-9280462/ 2. Bus Frequency: Stagecoach timetable 3. Traffic accidents: https://www.crashmap.co.uk/Search 4. Bus Infrastructure: https://www.stratford.gov.uk/doc/206646/name/Adopted%20Stratford%20Area%20Transport%20Strategy.pdf 5. Impact of Traffic on Environment: https://www.stratford.gov.uk/doc/206646/name/Adopted%20Stratford%20Area%20Transport%20Strategy.pdf 7. SFRA: https://www.stratford.gov.uk/planning-building/water-and-flood-risk.cfm

I write today to object to the potential development of 10 residential properties on Grove Lane. It has also come to my attention that the WDC planning portal is not working for me to add a comment. I would like to make a formal complaint to Mr Chris Elliot regarding this matter. Please find below the list of concerns I have in relation to these proposed development sites. The development of industrial units on the B4155 next to dial house farm would see those properties lose light and be very ugly on the landscape. These fields and hedgerows have wildlife within, we have already seen a large scale loss of wildlife in Warwickshire with the amount of housing developments and construction projects that have been sanctioned in this area. My property is Grove View Cottage, which sits directly in front of Grove Lane, Straight away I will lose privacy with the increase in traffic using Grove Lane. The volume of traffic will increase substantially with the addition of this development. Grove Lane is a single track road, we already see a bottleneck of vehicles when oil is being delivered, also when septic tanks are being emptied, some of these vehicles arrive at the same time as the school run, can you imagine the amount of distribution that will cause. My property and a number of properties in the village are listed buildings, this could have a huge effect on these properties, caused by the large number of construction vehicles driving through the village towards Grove lane. Ashow has no public transport, so again a major increase in traffic to the village. Increasing the traffic will cause potential issues with pedestrians, this will have a major impact on villagers and walkers that use the village on a regular basis. As you are aware, Ashow has no mains sewerage and gas, as mentioned above the additional traffic with sewage and oil trucks could impact the Grade 2 listed buildings in the close vicinity of Grove Lane. I understand this development is proposed on Green Belt land, but more importantly in a conservation area. We should be protecting conservation areas, We should be protecting the historical interest of the village. The houses on Long Row will have major disruption and loss of privacy and light. The final point I would like to make, the village has 44 houses, this will increase the size of the village by 25%, this for me is overdevelopment, as mentioned above will excessively have a major impact on the character of the village.

I wish to comment on the proposals contained within Stage 2 of the South Warwickshire Local Plan. 1. The Plan assumes high levels of growth in housing and employment developments which will destroy the environment and the Warwickshire countryside which the Council should be protecting. 2. The Plan contains a large number of potential sites for development which are on currently undeveloped open land. 3. I object to building on undeveloped agricultural land because this diminishes the ability to produce food, despoils the countryside and causes urban sprawl with associated traffic generation. 4. I am a resident of Barford and specifically object to: A. Employment/Industrial/Commercial uses south-east of Longbridge Junction 15 which is the land south of the M40 and to the north of Barford. This is in agricultural use and forms a buffer between the M40 and the village of Barford to the south. This buffer should remain and not be developed. B. Mixed uses south of and adjacent to Westham Lane in Barford. Development of this land which is in agricultural use, is west of the A429 which is a very busy road, is outside the Barford village envelope and is entirely inappropriate for development. This land should remain in agricultural use. C. Employment/Industrial/Commercial uses on land between the A425 Banbury Road and the M40 bounded to the north-east by Barford Woods. Development of this made up agricultural land which is used for grazing is totally inappropriate as it will largely close the open country gap separating the settlement of Barford from the substantial housing developments now being constructed on the land between Gallows Hill in Warwick and the A425 at its junction with Europa Way. The fill on part of this land was made up of rubbish and produces methane. D. Mixed uses south-west of the A425 between Europa Way and M40 junction 13. This site forms a buffer between the residential settlement of Bishops Tachbrook and the M40 and should be preserved as agricultural land. This site also extends to land south-west of the M40 and in parts fronts on to Hareway Lane. Development should not spread south-west of the A425. I applaud the stated objective of “A well-designed and beautiful South Warwickshire”. This will not be achieved by building over the countryside in spread out random locations and that tendency in the Plan must be removed.

I read, with dismay, the long winded documentation regarding the new local plan. While I could address individual questions, it is more the overall approach of the plan, with a mind to what has happened over the last 30 years in the area. Overall I feel there needs to be some new thinking on how things are done, otherwise future generations will look back in horror at the wilful mismanagement of a very limited resource (land) in the area. I moved to the area just over 30 years ago, and loved the rural nature of the community when moving here, but 30 years of relentless development mean life is very different now, in just a short space of time. If things continue unchecked, life here will be unrecognisable, and we are heading for disaster. Some points to consider: *The plan mainly revolves around the HEDNA issues - Housing and Development Needs, but there is almost no mention of catering to the needs of the existing population or community. As we have seen over the last 30 years, the plan will just draw thousands more people and businesses into the area, swamping the already creaking infrastructure of Leamington and the ancient streets of Warwick. *There is no mention of food production - one of the core basics of human life! *There is little focus on maintaining green spaces - these capture carbon, produce oxygen, make the area more appealing and also allow for food production - all key ingredients to a good life - yet over the last 30 years, thousands of acres of production farmland have been sacrificed to draw in business and people from surrounding areas. We had a housing shortage 30 years ago, and still do, despite all this building - something has gone very wrong, and should not be repeated. *There is little thought as to what development needs to go where - merely allocating areas as 'employment' land or suchlike - this leads to the complete abomination of certain areas like Tournament Fiends, where huge sheds are built, providing little employment, with little eco-credentials (no solar panels on any unit!!!) and no planning of where things ought to be placed (e.g. huge shed, right next to a care-home, meaning the views from some rooms are awful). Now we are faced with the corridor to Warwick being further blighted with huge sheds along the Stratford Road on currently productive farmland. *So where is the food production coming from, now that all these thousands of acres of farmland are being sacrificed? *Why are acres of land given up to solar farms, when not a single roof in Tournament Fields has solar panels?? *Why is an ambulance depot built where it would be surrounded by poor access roads leading to increased response times? *Every time a new part of Warwick Gates is built, another set of traffic lights is switched on, along the main artery into Leamington Spa - it now takes far far longer to get into Leamington from the M40 than it did 30 years ago - how is that progress?? *With all the sacrifice of green spaces, and construction of buildings and introduction of families, the air quality is depleted for all. *According to councillors, the haphazard nature of things is due to each application having to be considered on its individual merits, with no overall scheme in place - this is madness. *Why is more and more land being carved up, when there are huge brownfield sites that lie derelict (e.g. car dealerships along Europa Way, the Vauxhall site on Princes Drive, etc)??? *Why is there a desire to build huge business units and vast housing estates which bring people and businesses into the area, rather than cater to the needs of residents and businesses already here. Indeed, rather than cater for local residents, you are blighting our lives with massive developments on our doorstep that mean views, air quality, journey times, are all made worse, and with the roads so clogged with ever larger lorries, one's desire to walk or cycle is reduced, and thus making the congestion problem worse still??? I grew up in a Victorian suburb of London, and the Victorians had things planned out much better - houses were built in simple rows of similar houses, and all within walking distance of local shops that were built at the same time. Each town and village was self sufficient in its own basic shops and had farmers / growers supporting these businesses - very few journeys were made more than a few miles in total, and most far less, but you could always get the bus to the bigger town for the more unusual things. Why have we taken such backward steps??? I could go on, but you get the gist of it. The problem is endemic throughout the country - these comments could be levelled at most councils, as, I guess, you are all working to the same (flawed) national guidelines. The main problem I find is that the plan has no long term sustainability - it is just tackling a short term aim of providing housing and employment in as least impactful way. However, this is really just kicking the car down the road, creating a far bigger problem for future generations. As land is swallowed up inefficiently, we will be generating more and more problems of food supply, more companies have big distribution sites in the area and all this leads to more big lorries on roads that cannot cope, and as the housing stock is low density and built without suitable transport infrastructure, the roads are getting more and more clogged, leading to the lives of those within the area becoming blighted. This policy is unsustainable, as at some point the oxygen / CO2 levels will reach tipping point, the lack of farmland will reach tipping point, and Warwickshire will lose all its rural charm - no-one ever stands by a business park to admire the view! I doubt very much that anyone will take much notice of this email, which is a shame. I will keep it for a record, so future generations can read it, and point out that you were told of the problems you were creating.

I wish to register to objection to the proposal to build a minimum of 10 properties on Grove Lane. A previous application to build 4 properties on this land was rejected.

I have some concerns that I would like to express. Firstly I think that it is a good idea from an aesthetic and environmental aspect to keep open countryside between our local towns. Secondly many people value the opportunity to go for a local country walk. This helps to keep them healthy. Whilst not a dog owner myself it is a good opportunity for a dog to be exercised without the risk of fouling pavements. Also, where permitted, the dog can safely run free for a while without a lead.

I accept there may eventually be a need to build some new housing on greenbelt land in order to meet the area's housing commitments. My issue is one of prioritisation. I wish to comment on the proposal to change from agricultural/sport/engineering/racecourse/equestrian use to housing/residential use land in the following areas: Radford Semele, Whitnash, Bishop's Tachbrook, Aylesford (Warwick) and Hampton Magna. Radford Semele REFID 209, 98, 225, 142 and 182 are not currently designated as greenbelt. If REFID 225 and 142 were to be used for housing, this would have an adverse effect on the many people who walk in this area. However, the impact on walkers would be much less than in other areas with public footpaths (eg REFID 531). Whitnash REFID 20 and 46 cover current agricultural land and a golf course. Whilst it would be sad to lose a golf course, this area is not a major walking area and is not in the greenbelt. Bishop's Tachbrook REFID 163, 121, 106, 150, 156 and 152 cover agricultural land except for 156 which is engineering land. There are some walks in this area and they serve the local housing community. However, there is some designated engineering land and none of Bishop’s Tachbrook is in the greenbelt. Aylesford (Warwick) REFID 214 is the area to the west of Warwick Racecourse but is not in the greenbelt. There is one small public footpath which goes west towards Hampton Magna. It was closed when I last checked which is hardly surprising as it crosses the busy Warwick By-Pass. Hampton Magna REFID 573, 55, 95, 233 and 245 cover agricultural and equestrian land. There is a public footpath in REFID 573 and this links in with the public footpath tonWarwick Racecourse (see above). All of this area is in the greenbelt. Hampton Magna is in a designated greenbelt area. All the other areas (particularly the engineering land in Bishop's Tachbrook) should be developed first before considering whether or not to build new housing in Hampton Magna. Furthermore, this land should be developed first before considering whether or not to develop the land to the North and East of Leamington (REFID 531, 174, 97, 171 and 116). My comments in relation to this area are covered in a separate email.

I wish to object to the proposed adoption of development of the North Leamington Green Belt in the local Plan for the following reasons: • The land comprises high quality agricultural land which should be safeguarded in the interests of food security. • Footpaths across the land in question provide an important amenity and these are really popular giving access across the fields to Old Milverton and beyond. The recreational and health benefits are invaluable. • Preservation of the Green Belt prevents development encroaching northwards which would destroy rural setting of the northern approach to the town threatening to severely damage its setting and special character. • The Green Belt helps to maintain the distinct identities of both Leamington and Kenilworth which would be severely damaged by loss of Green Belt protection and sprawling development to the north. • Development of the Green Belt is not in line with current Government policy. • The statistics used in the consultation in support of Green Belt development is misleading. Stating that 54% of respondents support the exploration of Green Belt growth opportunities, without mentioning that 45% were developers. Landowners and businesses; the former two categories would benefit financially firstly from the dramatic in crease in land values for development compared to agricultural use and secondly the profit to be made by developers in building on Green Belt. • The Green Belt north of Leamington fulfils all five of the stated purposes of the Green Belt. • It is understood that the planning team explored options which placed development outside of the Green Belt yet it has presented none of these in the consultation document.

Impact on the Greenbelt We are concerned about the potential further erosion of the greenbelt around Kenilworth. We have seen considerable damage to this through the current Local Plan and HS2, and believe that further sacrifice would have an unacceptable impact on the character of the town and the amenity to local residents. It is essential that in the areas of Kenilworth that have no natural or man-made boundary (e.g. the A46), the greenbelt is preserved to prevent the continued outward spread of the town and the submerging of smaller settlements. Identification of sites and broad locations We are disappointed to see that the Issues and Options does not directly address the WDC consultants maps of six broad locations for potential development around Kenilworth nor the results of the first Call for Sites for landowners to offer land for development. Production of the broad locations has not involved the Town Council (contrary to Government guidelines) and we have concerns about the consultants methodology used which seems superficial. The Town Council requests that it is involved in all future conversations about strategic planning within and around the town, especially the opportunity the new Local Plan gives for updating the current Kenilworth Neighbourhood Plan.

Concerns about proposed developments on Green Belt north of Leamington Spa 1. Not in line with current Government policy to develop Green Belt sites when there are still Brown Field sites and derelict land available. 2. Need to safeguard prime agricultural land for national food security. 3. Preservation of footpaths and green land for recreation and health of towns residents. 4. Prevents northward spread of town to maintain Leamington’s special character. 5. Prevents Leamington and Kenilworth merging and eventually becoming a suburb of Coventry. I hope you will take account of these important concerns.

I am writing to share my opposed views to the proposed SWLP sites for more housing on green belt land in North Leamington Area. This is something I am strongly opposed to for a number of reasons as stated below, in no particular order of importance. *green belt land needs protecting *we need to encourage the recycling of derelict and other urban land. *green belt near north Leamington provides important spaces for people of all ages to exercise and support positive mental health. *importance of saving farmland. Important for the contribution to sustainability and security of food supply, which this land currently supplies. *importance of preserving setting and special character of historic towns, preventing neighbouring towns to merge into one. *the area also provide recreational, educational and health benefits to those in surrounding urban and suburban areas which are important now more than ever. *more housing in the area will put more pressure on already challenging road net works, access to Leamington and Warwick. Please add this to the information for opposing the building of homes on Green belt land in North Leamington area.

I appreciate the need for more housing locally, but feel strongly that the encroachment onto Green Belt designated areas is not acceptable when brown sites exist. Green belt designation has always been vital for recreation and health, all the more important with a growing population and the stresses of modern life post pandemic and under even greater financial strain. There are many reasons being put forward to consider when making planning arrangement but to my mind this one is certainly one of the most significant, and I would like to be sure that it is given due consideration. I also feel it is important to preserve local communities with their unique personalities and not merge them into one urban sprawl.

Please find my comments to the proposed development of the Green Belt (issue S6) with specific reference to the Land at Blackdown, north of Leamington Spa (REFID 174 – loss of 69 acres of Green Belt agricultural land for Housing/Residential). As you can see from the screenshot below, whilst the portal only appears to allow comments for sections s5 and s7, there is no space for such comment on s6, therefore, please see the comments below, and I would be grateful if you could confirm receipt and that they have been entered into the consultation process? The proposed development on 69 acres of agricultural land which currently provides the green buffer to the urban area to the north of Leamington Spa is a significant departure from the over-arching principles of the current local plan which protects Green Belt. The key issues with this development are that, beyond the loss of an important area of wildlife and agriculture which represents the character of the area to the north of Leamington Spa, it also fails to represent a sustainable development proposal. The site lacks the access to amenities provided to the South of Leamington Spa, which has already seen a significant increase in residential provision and where significant numbers of homes remain available therefore raising questions over the need for further housing at the expense of such an important area. The land to the north of Leamington is more restricted in its connectivity to key infrastructure such as the station and major shops and will drive significant traffic through the town centre which does not have the capacity for such a significant increase. Over 1000 homes are suggested for this land (174) which will produce a significant increase in the resident population and exceed the available places in the local schools which are all at or very close to capacity OR will require a significant number of residents to attend schools to the south of the town, again creating a significant impact on the traffic through the town centre. With such a significant level of housing remaining available (New builds Heathcote, Warwickshire (newhomesforsale.co.uk) https://www.newhomesforsale.co.uk/new-homes/warwickshire/heathcote/) to the South side and numerous other non-Green Belt sites remaining available it is clear that the loss of the greenbelt land in this location, particularly when combined with the loss of Greenbelt due to HS2 which is in close proximity, thereby creates a drastic extension to the urban area and completely alters the character of the area. With the proximity of the HS2 development area, this area of land creates a important green barrier to further encroachment into the Green Belt and wider countryside and the merits of the site for housing development and necessity are highly questionable as it appears the site is not well supported by transport, amenities, creates wider issues such and schools and other public service provisions particularly where housing supply still appears sufficient.

As a long time resident of North Leamington I am concerned that this consultation is once again going over old ground concerning the use of Green Belt land for housing. Six years ago the Planning Inspector rejected WDC’s planning proposals and more recently in December 2022 the Secretary of State reiterated that “local planning authorities are not expected to review Green Belt to deliver housing”. Do the people in our local planning department ever take notice of what the Government says I wonder? Along with other parts of the Country South Warwickshire’s countryside has already been ravaged by the nonsense project that is HS2 with the loss of acres of woodland, natural habitats and valuable agricultural land. HS2 offers nothing to those who live in the affected areas so we have to make sure we preserve what Green Belt land we have left, not only for ourselves but more importantly for future generations. Here in North Leamington we have high quality agricultural land which is more vital for our food security than ever before. Our countryside also offers miles of recreational footpaths contributing to the health and well being of the general public. Finally, if it were allowed to happen, the loss of Green Belt to housing would erode the distinct boundaries of villages between Kenilworth and Leamington and eventually lead to urban sprawl. As the local plan moves to the next stage I hope that the views of residents will be given more weight that those of the developers and landowners who only have interest in financial gain, rather than quality of life for the local community.

QS4.1 - Growth of existing settlements: The growth of existing settlements should only be considered where greenbelt development is not required. Further development should be considered in non greenbelt, existing developments even if they have been previously extended. Necessary infrastructure should be created to support non greenbelt development. Where growth of existing settlements cannot occur without using greenbelt , alternatives should be sorced not requiring the use of greenbelt. QS-5.2 - New Settlements: It is completely unacceptable to develope new settlements in greenbelt land. It is completely unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are proposed within the greenbelt. New settlements in non greenbelt land should be the focus, with the infrastructure to support them. Q-S5.3 - Rail Corridors: Rail corridors offer substantial development opportunities outside of the greenbelt. Development alongside rail corridors to the south of the region avoiding greenbelt development would be a good option, with the plan outlining sufficient houses to justify to a new station. This would reduce the risk of overcrowding existing areas/stations in locations with existing stations in greenbelt. Development in North Leamington would lead to yet more congestion in Leamington as more people travel to the station and a new station in greenbelt would be totally unacceptable. To use the climate emergency to justify developing greenbelt is a completely unforgivable argument, is it because VAT isn't payable on new builds and greenbelt is easier to develope (less cost/profit to the developer) than brownfield sites? Q-S7.2 - Dispersed Development: I am completely against the "dispersed" development option which includes the frequent development of greenbelt. I am particularly against dispersed developments in small greenbelt villages such as Weston under Wetherley. Dispersed developments in small villages destroys the character, community and rural nature of these communities. Small rural communities and their characters and cultures must be protected as part of our combined heritage. Q-S8.1 - Settlements falling outside the chosen growth strategy: It is not appropriate to use a threshold approach to small scale developments in greenbelt areas. The plan should not allow for more small scale growth developments to be put forward in greenbelt areas. Q-S10 - Any further comments: I am completely opposed to the development of the greenbelt land areas in and around Weston under Wetherley and other similar small greenbelt villages as it will change the rural character of North Leamington greenbelt, which has already need impacted beyond belief by HS2. To use the climate emergency to develop green belt completely contradicts are need to protect the environment, which must must be a priority for the future of all life - no point in new housing if there is no planet.

QS1 select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire Option S1a: Identify Strategic Green and Blue Corridors in advance of the Local Nature Recovery Strategy being produced South Warwickshire Councils need a clear policy to protect important environmental assets, designated and non designated sites including potential local wildlife sites. As well as a policy to enhance and restore wildlife sites. Without watering down the policy with wording such as ‘where appropriate’ and in line with the priorities of the Biodiversity Action Plan. The Councils need to plan in line with the legal requirements set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), 25 year Environment Plan, the Governments commitment to 30% land in nature recovery by 2030, COP 27 and COP 15 and the Councils declared climate change emergencies. National Planning Policy Framework Paragraph 20d) requires ‘conservation and enhancement of the natural...environment, including landscapes and green infrastructure, and planning measures to address climate change mitigation and adaptation’ Paragraph 175. Requires Councils ‘take a strategic approach to maintaining and enhancing networks of habitats and green infrastructure; and plan for the enhancement of natural capital at a catchment or landscape scale across local authority boundaries’. Q S3.2 Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire 7 Option S3.2a: Prioritise brownfield development only when it corresponds with the identified growth strategy, or if it can be proven that the development is in a sustainable location or would increase the sustainability of the area. Brownfield site should be given the upmost priority and areas should only be proven to be an unsustainable location if regeneration projects of the area to make it a sustainable option is not viable.

QS4.1 - Growth of Existing Settlements: These should only be a consideration when greenbelt is not affected. Q-S5.2 - New Settlements: It is unacceptable to plan to build within the greenbelt, there are no reasons where this should be considered, they are greenbelt for reason to protect land never to be built on. Q-S5.3 - Rail Corridors: I feel that making rail corridors a priority may offer a solution for housing development as long as greenbelt land is not affected The plan outlines 6000 homes, this would be enough for a new station to be developed along an existing line south of the county. North Leamington is already at capacity and therefore should be avoided when considering the rail corridors. Q-S10 - Any other comment: You cannot use the Climate Emergency as an argument, this is such a strange argument as by building these developments common-sense tells you that you are directly impacting the environment that leads to climate change. It is so damaging to the environment by building on greenbelt land.

The plan concerning Bearley is startling in its ineptitude.Suggesting houses are built on the relatively recently constructed village hall site.Giving incorrect information on the rail routes available from its train station.No account made of the current local support for 24 houses at the Country Wide brown field site. However the lack of any future planning regarding transport is truly remiss. Look at Meon Vale and Long Marston,in your own back yard,the road structures cannot cope.The most successful outcome of such wide ranging building projects will be GRIDLOCK.

Local plan - green belt I object in the strongest possible terms to any further development in this area. Old Milverton is a sanctuary for many people who come here for recreational purposes, to take exercise with their dogs or just to enjoy the peace and quiet of the countryside and observe wildlife. We need to preserve our farmland, food production is essential. We cannot lose this special space and run the risk of joining up with building works in Kenilworth. Please protect our green belt and listen to the people.

Concerns about proposed development around Kenilworth It concerns me that the options presented for housing development around Kenilworth in the report produced by Lepus consulting does not appear to fully take into account the likely impact on Kenilworth of the proposed development. Not only will these options result in the loss of public rights of way that allow residents (and others) to walk through the countryside, providing an amenity and health benefits to those that partake, but also this Greenfield development will result in the loss of prime agricultural land. Recent global events have impacted food supplies to this country and we should do everything possible to avoid the loss of agricultural land and the consequent ability to feed ourselves for a reasonable price. Furthermore, the proposals do not seem to take into account the impact that the extra population will have on traffic and services in Kenilworth. Currently dental and doctors services in Kenilworth are over stretched and unless the proposals include the building of new medical centres then they are flawed. Similarly the roads through Kenilworth are very congested at many times of the day. It seems obvious that without the creation of a Kenilworth bypass or the widening of the Warwick Road traffic congestion in Kenilworth will be made much worse by the extra residents that the development will attract. Please let me know if you have plans that will address these serious issues

I am very concerned that the greenbelt land to the north of Leamington Spa maybe under consideration for housing development. I am particularly concerned that the Ex Servicemens Binswood Allotments, the New Binswood Allotments and those accessed from Old Milverton lane. All these areas mentioned are a significant source of relaxation, well-being and pride, not to mention the ability to grow produce for families and friends in these uncertain times. Also the footpaths across the fields to Old Milverton, Saxon Mill and beyond have become recreationally important for so many people, families and dog walkers. This area is so beautiful and easily accessible. I hope that my concerns for this green belt area are unfounded, please reconsider including this important environment in the Local Plan.

I am very concerned that there are plans for housing estates on various sites in Kenilworth. I feel that Kenilworth is at saturation point with regards to new housing. Kenilworth Gates at Thickthorn is now underway with over 500 houses being built. Houses to be built on the site of the two schools when they have been vacated, at least those houses will be on a brown field site. Houses having been built very recently on the left hand side just as you leave Kenilworth and approach Leek Wootton. A new estate called Kenilworth Corner complete with new traffic lights in Common Lane to ease the traffic. Houses being built near the new school site in Glasshouse Lane. The list goes on and on! Kenilworth is an historic and lovely town. Visitors come from all over to visit the beautiful Castle and Abbey Fields surely if you don’t care about the residents perhaps you should think about the tourists who I’m sure will be reluctant to visit an overpopulated and urban environment. I notice that quite a few of the proposed sites are on green belt land. Could you please tell me where the mammals/insects/amphibians are going to go. Some of the proposed sites are historically important, the Beehive Hill site is virtually in the shadow of the Castle. How are the Kenilworth residents going to cope with all the extra traffic. How are they going to make an appointment at the Doctors surgery, there are only two in the town. Just down the road from Kenilworth is Warwick University, a town in itself nowadays. The University grounds were beautiful but to walk on the footpath from Kenilworth to the University is now a sad sight thanks to the destruction that HS2 has wreaked on the countryside. I, and so many people I talk to, feel that Kenilworth has had its share of disruption and decimation. Finally I’d like to misquote a Joni Mitchell song ‘ you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone. They paved paradise and put up housing estates’!

I wish to express my disappointment with the proposal that land to the North and East of Leamington is to be changed from agricultural to housing/residential use. Given the growth of the local population in recent years, I accept there is a need to build a quantity of affordable housing. However: 1) Priority should have been given to using brownfield sites first; 2) This proposal blurs still further the boundary between Leamington and Kenilworth; 3) The 3 largest sites all impact on land that is used regularly by large numbers of walkers. REFID 531 - Literally thousands of people each year walk up Northumberland Road and turn left into Bamburgh Road in order to access the fields. Some are accompanied by dogs. Many are simply walking. There is then a lovely walk across the fields to Old Milverton and possibly on to the Saxon Mill. At a time when everyone is being encouraged to take regular exercise, this walk would simply disappear if houses were to be built on this land; - Alternatively, many thousands of people walk down to the bottom of Guy’s Cliffe Avenue and cross the fields to Old Milverton and beyond. Once again, this walk would simply disappear if houses were to be built on this land; - The traffic could only leave via one of two routes. Either it would go via Old Milverton Road and on to the Rugby Road. On the approach to Rugby Road, the traffic is already mainly down to one lane. How would this route cope with the additional traffic? Alternatively, it would go via Sandy Lane on to the Kenilworth Road where traffic is very congested. REFID 174 - Once again, there is a public footpath which goes from Lillington Road to Westhill Road. This would effectively disappear; - However, if pressed, I would prefer this land to be used instead of REF 531 because far fewer walkers use this public footpath. REFID 97 - Once again, it would be very disappointing to see the public footpaths in this area disappear; - Nevertheless, there are alternative footpaths around Newbold Comyn and over to places like Offchurch; - If pressed, I would prefer this land to be used instead of REFID 531 because far fewer walkers use this public footpath. REFID 116 - This is a smaller piece of land. As it backs on to the busy A46, it will have relatively little impact on the surrounding area; - If pressed, I would prefer this land to be used instead of REFID 531 and there is no public footpath of which I am aware. Of the options identified above, REFID 116 is the least contentious. However, I suspect it is too small to meet this area’s housing needs. Therefore, after considering brownfield sites, I would combine REFID 116 with another option. Nevertheless, I would rule out completely using REFID 531 because the public footpaths are literally used by thousands of walkers each year.

I do not feel a threshold approach to small scale development is appropriate in greenbelt areas. We do not feel the plan should allow for more small scale growth developments to come forward in greenbelt areas. I am specifically opposed to development of land in the greenbelt areas around Hunningham and other similar small greenbelt villages due to the impact on the rural character of the area of the North Leamington Greenbelt. The Climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land. This is a weak and bizarre argument. There are other ways of mitigating against the climate emergency without developing on greenbelt land, which itself is truly harmful. There is no option to comment on issue S6 within the plan (A review of the greenbelt boundaries). I do not feel it is necessary or appropriate to redefine greenbelt boundaries. This issue should not have been included within the consultation without the option to comment. The number of respondents (561 responses) to the first consultation was exceptionally small indeed and can in no way be considered representative of the population area. It is possible given these very small numbers they were from developers or others who would directly benefit from such development (there were almost as many sites submitted as responses received!). This tiny number of respondents is so small it should not be used as a basis for decision making and should not be used to justify development or review of the greenbelt.

Q-S3.2: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire: 2A: Prioritise brownfield development only when it corresponds with the identified growth strategy, or if it can be provide that the development is in a sustainable location or would increase the sustainability of the area. 2B: Prioritise development on brownfield land, incorporating existing buildings into development proposals wherever possible, irrespective of its location. 2C: None of these. 3.12. It is acknowledged that national policy encourages the reuse and redevelopment of brownfield land. However, as identified by Option 2A, it is important that brownfield development should reflect the identified growth strategy in order to ensure that sustainable development is achieved. 3.13. It should be noted that the Urban Capacity Study (October 2022) established that it is unlikely to be possible to meet current development needs without significant greenfield development. Whilst the reuse of suitable brownfield land, in line with the growth strategy and/or in sustainable locations should be encouraged by planning policy, it will not avoid the need for greenfield development as part of the South Warwickshire Local Plan. Q-S4.1: Do you think that growth of some of our existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy? 3.14. Growth at existing settlements across the Joint Plan area should form part of the overall Plan strategy, as this would accord with the differing current pattern of spatial development across the two administrative areas. 3.15. Warwick focuses development around its four main urban areas, whilst Stratford’s identified Local Service Villages accommodate a proportion of development as well as its main towns. 3.16. In order to develop the most sustainable pattern of development, growth at existing settlements should be in sustainable locations. It is important that appropriate levels of growth are apportioned to existing settlements in order to maintain the vitality and viability of settlements, support new and existing infrastructure requirements and provide an appropriate mix of housing for the area. 3.17. Welford-on-Avon is identified within Option 5 however it benefits from a range of local services and facilities and would contribute towards achieving the Council’s aspiration for 20 minute neighbourhoods. The SA should assess Welford-on-Avon and proposed development options for the settlement, including this Site. 3.18. This Site (Call for Sites ref: 535) is located in a sustainable location and should be positively considered as a location for growth. Issues S6: A Review of Green Belt boundaries 3.20. The Issues and Options consultation document does not set out any specific question on Green Belt matters, but these representations support a review of the Green Belt boundary as part of the Plan making process. 3.21. As set out in the NPPF para 136, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation of Local Plans. Moreover, strategic policies should establish the need for changes to Green Belt, and where proposed, the amended boundaries should be able to endure in the long term, i.e. Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the plan period. 3.22. NPPF para 137 requires exceptional circumstances to include evidence of the examination of all other reasonable options for meeting an identified need for development. Importantly, in reviewing Green Belt boundaries sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account. 3.23. The Green Belt is tightly drawn around, and indeed, washes over, a number of existing settlements across the Plan area. In proposing, assessing and review growth options, where the most sustainable form of development is likely to be around existing settlements, it is therefore imperative that the Local Plan evidence base includes a Green Belt review. The Councils’ recognition of this in relation to a number of the proposed growth options is supported. 3.24. If a Green Belt boundary review is not undertaken, development will need to ‘jump the Green Belt’ which would result in an isolated pattern of development. Q-S7.2 For each growth option, please indicate whether you feel it is an appropriate strategy for South Warwickshire: 3.25. It is noted that the Issues & Options document has reduced the previous seven growth options presented in the Scoping Consultation to five options as outlined above through refining and combining options, including Option 2 sustainable travel (combination of rail and bus corridor) and Option 3 economy (combination of socio-economic and enterprise hub options). In this consultation document, Option 4 sustainable travel and economy effectively combines Options 2 and 3. It is clear from this process that the growth option to be pursued will represent a combination of all five options outlined above. 3.26. The options now presented in the Issues and Options, apart from Option 5: Dispersed, perform broadly similarly to each other in the SA (Table 7.1) suggesting not one option may have significantly more or less impact than any of the others when considered against the SA Framework. At this stage, the SA has not considered any mitigation or site-specific options for growth within settlements identified within the ‘dispersed’ option (5). There could be significant variance in how each settlement and individual sites would perform against the SA objectives. All of the growth options could deliver sustainable development and a combination of all options will be the most appropriate option for the development of the Plan going forward. 3.27. By necessity, the strategy will need to identify areas outside existing settlement boundaries for growth/development. The Urban Capacity Study identifies capacity for 6,145 dwellings within the existing urban boundaries. If the Plan proceeds with the housing figures set out in Table 9 of the Issues and Options consultation at 1,679 dwellings per annum the Urban Capacity Study would only be able to deliver a 3.66 year supply of housing. Land from other sources will therefore be required and it is important that all options are considered in taking the Plan forward. 3.28. Combining sustainable travel (including rail) and economy will naturally direct most growth to the larger, more sustainable settlements. However, it is important that appropriate, proportionate growth is directed to smaller settlements in order to support the continued viability and vitality of these settlements going forward. This would include supporting or enhancing sustainable travel options at these locations. This needs to be positively planned for as part of the South Warwickshire Local Plan and as such an element of dispersal should form part of the final growth option. This will require a careful consideration of all of the options, including growth at existing main settlements, growth at smaller existing settlements, proximity to services and jobs, availability of infrastructure or opportunities for infrastructure delivery and a Green Belt boundary review to ensure development is not isolated beyond the defined Green Belt boundaries. Q-S8.1: For settlements falling outside the chosen growth strategy, do you think a threshold approach is appropriate, to allow more small-scale developments to come forward? 3.29. The supporting text for this question confirms that the aim of this approach would be to allow for development within or adjacent to existing settlements. This provides greater scope of these settlements to accommodate growth than the current infill only approach. The proposed approach to allow for suitable development within or adjacent to existing settlements is supported and will allow for suitable growth. 3.30. An across the board threshold limit of 10 dwellings is not supported. The amount of development different settlements can accommodate will vary significantly depending on various factors, such as existing services and facilities, local need for housing and the suitability of the proposed site to accommodate a certain level of development. 3.31. In addition, developments of 10 or fewer dwellings are exempt from affordable housing. Even where a lower threshold is set, developments of this scale generally result in a commuted sum towards affordable housing elsewhere. This is due to a variety of factors, including that registered providers often will not take on a small number of dwellings in one location. It is clearly preferable to have affordable housing delivered on site wherever possible to meet local needs. Setting a more flexible threshold that would allow for a higher level ofdevelopment where appropriate would support greater on-site affordable housing provision. Q-S9: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire 3.32. The South Warwickshire Local Plan provides the opportunity to review all settlement boundaries and ensure they will be fit for purpose across the plan period. Saving all existing settlement boundaries is unlikely to be effective in positively planning for plan-led growth across the plan period. This should apply all settlements as part of the exercise will be to assess which settlements which would benefit from a defined boundary. 3.33. To be found sound, the Plan must be prepared: Positively, in a way that is aspirational, but deliverable, and it should set out a framework for addressing housing needs and other economic, social and environmental priorities (NPPF paragraphs 15 and 16). To shape the spatial strategy for the Plan and ensure all reasonable alternatives are considered, a review of existing settlement boundaries will be required to identify sufficient land, in sustainable location to meet the development needs of the Plan. 3.34. In addition, settlement boundaries will need to be reviewed and amended to take account of new allocations. 3.35. For example, the Green Belt boundary and development boundary for Stratford-upon-Avon should be reviewed which would allow for the inclusion of this Site (Call for Sites ref: 535) within the development boundary for Welford-on-Avon to deliver sustainable residential growth.

I do not feel a threshold approach to small scale development is appropriate in greenbelt areas. We do not feel the plan should allow for more small scale growth developments to come forward in greenbelt areas. I am specifically opposed to development of land in the greenbelt areas around Hunningham and other similar small greenbelt villages due to the impact on the rural character of the area of the North Leamington Greenbelt. The Climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land. This is a weak and bizarre argument. There are other ways of mitigating against the climate emergency without developing on greenbelt land, which itself is truly harmful. There is no option to comment on issue S6 within the plan (A review of the greenbelt boundaries). I do not feel it is necessary or appropriate to redefine greenbelt boundaries. This issue should not have been included within the consultation without the option to comment. The number of respondents (561 responses) to the first consultation was exceptionally small indeed and can in no way be considered representative of the population area. It is possible given these very small numbers they were from developers or others who would directly benefit from such development (there were almost as many sites submitted as responses received!). This tiny number of respondents is so small it should not be used as a basis for decision making and should not be used to justify development or review of the greenbelt.

South Warwickshire Local Plan (Part 1) Issues and Options Consultation (Regulation 18) On behalf of our client, Federated Hermes Property Unit Trust (“Hermes”), we are pleased to submit representations to the South Warwickshire Local Plan (“SWLP”) Part 1 Issues and Options Consultation (Regulation 18). These representations have been submitted alongside our response to the Call for Sites in relation to the Maybird Shopping Park, Birmingham Road, Stratford-upon-Avon. Hermes owns Maybird Shopping Park in Stratford-upon-Avon, which is an ‘out of centre’ shopping destination, approximately 800 m from the primary shopping area of the town centre. Existing operators within the shopping park include B&Q, Boots, Next, Matalan and M&S. As set out in the Call for Sites, Hermes is considering the potential future redevelopment of the shopping park for mixed use, residential led development, however these representations are also relevant to continued retail use at the site. Hermes’ response to the Issues and Options Consultation is provided in this letter and focusses on the following issues: • Issue E2: A Low Carbon Economy; • Issue E9: Supporting our changing town centres; • Issue H1: Providing the right number of new homes; • Issue H2: Providing the right tenure and type of homes; • Issue H3: Providing the right size of homes; • Issue C4: New Buildings; • Issue C5: Existing Buildings; Issue C8: Adapting to flood and drought events; • Issue C10 – Climate Change Risk Assessments; • Issue W2: Health Impact Assessments for major development. Summary We trust that the comments on the Issues and Options Consultation Document will be taken into account and used in the further development of the Part 1 SWLP. Hermes would also like to reserve the right to comment on the proposed wording of any draft planning policies when they are published as part of the Preferred Options (Regulation 18) consultation stage.Please do not hesitate to contact myself or my colleague Ian Anderson if you have any queries regarding the comments provided in this letter.

We do not feel a threshold approach to small scale development is appropriate in greenbelt areas. We do not feel the plan should allow for more small scale growth developments to come forward in greenbelt areas. I am specifically opposed to development of land in the greenbelt areas around Hunningham and other similar small greenbelt villages due to the impact on the rural character of the area of the North Leamington Greenbelt. The Climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land. This is a weak and bizarre argument. There are other ways of mitigating against the climate emergency without developing on greenbelt land, which itself is truly harmful. There is no option to comment on issue S6 within the plan (A review of the greenbelt boundaries). I do not feel it is necessary or appropriate to redefine greenbelt boundaries. This issue should not have been included within the consultation without the option to comment. The number of respondents (561 responses) to the first consultation was exceptionally small indeed and can in no way be considered representative of the population area. It is possible given these very small numbers they were from developers or others who would directly benefit from such development (there were almost as many sites submitted as responses received!). This tiny number of respondents is so small it should not be used as a basis for decision making and should not be used to justify development or review of the greenbelt.