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

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 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.

Settlements falling outside the chosen growth strategy: 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. Q-S10 - Any other comments: Greenbelt protection would seen to me even more vital today and a proposal on this scale would fly in the face of that. The Leamington/ Coventry Green belt is already narrow and a proposal on this scale would erode this further unacceptably. the importance of open space for wellbeing is well understood. I am specifically opposed to development of land in the greenbelt areas in/around Weston under Wetherley 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. Redefining green belt land seems an easy option for Developers to justify proposals to suit their plans.Greenbelt land is a definition and a protection to rural areas, should be obvious.

Q-S1: Option S1a: There should be sufficient existing technical evidence already available to identify the corridors. There would also be scope for these to be modified, as necessary as the local plan progresses. If this approach is taken it is important that maps and images are at a scale and have sufficient clarity so that the status of specific land parcels can be distinguished. Option S1b: It seems unlikely that the scope for any reduced synergy would be very significant and, as mentioned above, there is scope to reduce that as the local plan progresses towards adoption. Q-S2: Option S2b would appear to be the most realistic, and achievable option. It is of some concern that the consultation document identifies some of the potential climate change benefits that can arise from intensification while at the same time failing to recognize potential dis-benefits such as adding to congestion in already congested areas and undermining the character and appearance, as well as the attractive of urban areas though over-intensification. In addition, since all development should be carbon-free by 2050 the differential impacts on climate change between different locations should be significantly reduced. The plan appears to be predicated on a principle that development in urban areas is preferable in climate change terms that development elsewhere. This appears to be a principle based on assertion rather than definitive evidence. It could lead to the degradation of attractive urban environments which would be counter-productive. Q-S3.2: These options and the analysis behind them appear somewhat confused and focused towards urban concentration. As highlighted earlier in this response, the evidence to conclusively prove those options are the most sustainable and have the least impact on climate change and CO2 reduction is based more on assertion rather than on conclusive evidence. We also feel that the term 'prioritise’ may not be the most suitable, not least because of its uncertain meaning. Perhaps ‘make best use of’ would be a better terminology. Q-S8.2: A 10 dwelling limit generally seems appropriate although any such limit should also be caveated to enable developments of more than 10 dwellings in exceptional circumstances or where criteria have been met in terms of sustainability and perhaps provision of additional infrastructure, otherwise potential developments of 11-49 dwellings which might be acceptable on all other grounds would have been excluded from the local plan process. Q-S9: The development strategy should enable a proportion of development to come forward outside strategic sites with a capacity of 50 or more dwellings. The scale of small scale dispersed growth should be disaggregated across the plan area to provide the basis for Neighbourhood Development Plans and the review of settlement boundaries where this is necessary. However, it is important that identification of suitable sites is not unduly delayed and the potential identification and release of an appropriate scale of development where sites have been taken through the Call for Sites should not be unduly delayed. Ideally, where it is known that settlement boundaries require amendment then these settlements should, at the very least, be identified in the plan. If, having identified these settlements then it should be accepted that land might be released adjacent to the extant development boundary. This would provide a strong incentive for Neighbourhood Development Plans and or Site Allocation Plans to be put into place. Q-S10: The level and distribution of growth should be clearly set out in the plan to provide a sound basis for Neighbourhood Development Plans.

1. About 7 or 8 years ago a considerable amount of energy, time and money went into commenting on WDC's then plans for future 'Coventry overspill' housing to the south and north of Leamington. All that considerable effort ended with the extensive building that is now going on around Europa Way. The land around Old Milverton and Blackdown and the Kenilworth Rd were deemed to remain valuable green belt. It was obvious to me certainly at some of the public meetings that I attended back then that there were those in WDC that were still eager to get their hands on the beautiful field landscape that is appreciated just as it is by so many and here we are again. 2. Next in that process just a few years ago we were all in my oppinion duped into agreeing to WDC having it's own powers for it's future planning strategy. This we were told would make decisions based on local knowledge and the areas best interests. With hindsight this appears to have layed the foundations for yet another pass at land grab by WDC to bring the north Leamington landscape back onto the agenda. 3. Having got your wishes back onto the table WDC have made the process of commenting somewhat complex and lengthy thereby putting many people off. Add to that many will feel that after all that effort previously what is the point as WDC will do what they want anyway and wear you down in the process! 4. I believe that in now bringing this proposal for further development back to the table relatively so soon after the last proposed future development debate that WDC are merely seeking a result that they always wanted 'endorsed' by an ever weaker and worn down local community. This is like the SNP strategy of seeking referendums until you get the result that you want! I also believe that WDC duped us all a few years ago into thinking that responsibility for a local strategic plan being taken by WDC was a much better option for us all and would protect our area better than the then existing arrangement. We'll done, we fell for it! 5. At no point in the latest 'plan' do you make a case for keeping the beauty of the area as it is! You make no mention of the loss to the community or the impact by development on the beauty of the area for future generations. By somewhat of a contradiction and dwarfed by your case for supposed other needs your promotion for the local plan happily refers to bio diversity and beautiful Warwickshire as words without any soul or justification whilst all the other 'needs' are fully expanded! As such the beauty of the area for future generations are not properly represented by WDC. 6. I believe that WDC will, through a democratic war of attrition do all they can to get their hands on the beautiful green belt land that is Old Milverton and Blackdown. I do question why that is and why some parties are so keen to do so ? 7. At a time when our grain imports have been shown to be vulnerable to world disruption as demonstrated by the war in Ukraine WDC are apparantly proposing a planning possibility that would remove a large swathe of local grain and rapeseed production for an increasing population. I see no case in your local plan for that loss and you have not properly represented it. 'Climate resilience' and 'net zero' are mere 'tick box' words if you do not connect them to relevant local attributes and local grain production for food production in the UK is something that has a positive impact when weighed against transporting that grain halfway across Europe. Nowhere is that properly considered or weighted as an argument in your SWLP. 8. Finally I have no faith in the current SWLP consultation exercise as a receptive democratic process. You have already shown that if you don't get the answer that you want WDC will repeat the process further down the line until they do. I hope that if you finally get your way and the developers move into the beautiful North Leamington green belt that the currently worn down community will be recharged and ready to unravel why WDC targeted and sacrificed a beautiful landscape for future generations. This response to the current SWLP might not be in the exact format that you want ,or what WDC want to hear but it is nonetheless relevant feedback based on your submission. Can I ask please that it is not sidelined or deleted but put forward with all the feedback responses.

I would like to comment on the South Warwickshire Local Plan Consultation with the following arguments: 1. The Green Belt north of Leamington is important for many reasons: - It is high quality agricultural land which should be safeguarded for the sake of national food security - Its footpaths offer recreational and health benefits for many people in the town of Leamington Spa who can access the area by foot. The number of people using footpaths increased hugely during periods of lockdowns and has continued since - It prevents a sprawling northwards of the town of Leamington Spa and forms a green "northern gateway" to the town. This in turn helps Leamington to maintain its setting and special character. - It helps to maintain the distinct identities of the towns of Kenilworth and Leamington Spa and prevents them from merging into one another. - It assists in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land in line with the government's "brownfield firsts" pledge. 2. It is not necessary or appropriate to develop the Green Belt north of Leamington because: - It is not in line with current Government policy - the statistic used in the Consultation in support of green belt development is misleading. This says that 54% of respondents support the exploration of green belt growth opportunities, without mentioning that 45% of respondents were developers, land owners and businesses. - The Green Belt north of Leamington fulfils all 5 of the stated purposes of the Green Belt - The Green Belt north of Leamington is high quality agricultural land which should be safeguarded for the sake of national food security - The planning team explored options which placed development outside of the Green Belt yet it has presented none of these in the consultation document.

: 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.

I would like to comment on the South Warwickshire Local Plan Consultation with the following arguments: 1. The Green Belt north of Leamington is important for many reasons: - It is high quality agricultural land which should be safeguarded for the sake of national food security - Its footpaths offer recreational and health benefits for many people in the town of Leamington Spa who can access the area by foot. The number of people using footpaths increased hugely during periods of lockdowns and has continued since - It prevents a sprawling northwards of the town of Leamington Spa and forms a green "northern gateway" to the town. This in turn helps Leamington to maintain its setting and special character. - It helps to maintain the distinct identities of the towns of Kenilworth and Leamington Spa and prevents them from merging into one another. - It assists in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land in line with the government's "brownfield firsts" pledge. 2. It is not necessary or appropriate to develop the Green Belt north of Leamington because: - It is not in line with current Government policy - the statistic used in the Consultation in support of green belt development is misleading. This says that 54% of respondents support the exploration of green belt growth opportunities, without mentioning that 45% of respondents were developers, land owners and businesses. - The Green Belt north of Leamington fulfils all 5 of the stated purposes of the Green Belt - The Green Belt north of Leamington is high quality agricultural land which should be safeguarded for the sake of national food security - The planning team explored options which placed development outside of the Green Belt yet it has presented none of these in the consultation document.

Settlements falling outside the chosen growth strategy: 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.

QS4.1 Growth of existing settlements – Growth of existing settlements should only be considered where it does not require development in the greenbelt. Previous growth of existing settlements in non-greenbelt locations should not prevent further development and infrastructure should be invested to support further non-greenbelt development. Where growth of existing settlements cannot be assured without using greenbelt land, alternative solutions should be considered that do not involve development in greenbelt land. Q-S5.2 - New Settlements: I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non-greenbelt site. Q-S5.3 – Rail Corridors. I feel that the prioritisation of rail corridors may offer a sensible option for development. There is substantial scope to include development alongside rail corridors outside of the greenbelt. I feel development alongside rail corridors to the South of the region, explicitly avoiding greenbelt development should be supported. The plan outlines that an indicative 6000 new homes would be sufficient to support a new rail station, and there is ample geographical options to achieve this outside of the greenbelt. Additionally, this would reduce the likelihood of overcrowding existing areas/stations in locations with existing stations in the Greenbelt. Development in North Leamington is not appropriate to use Leamington Spa station as there is already heavy traffic congestion in people moving from the North to the South of the town. A new station in the greenbelt is unacceptable. The Climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land, this is a weak argument as there are other ways of mitigating against the climate emergency without developing on greenbelt. Q-S7.2 – For the remaining spatial growth options, I feel it is important that the priority is to avoid developing greenbelt land. The need for greenbelt development in each spatial option should be considered before selecting a specific spatial growth option. This is needed to fulfil NPPF “exceptional circumstances” principle. It is not acceptable to select a spatial option without first considering the need to develop greenbelt to deliver that option. Instead, it should be assessed whether another spatial growth option could be selected that requires less (or no) greenbelt development, and that option with the least greenbelt development should be selected, even if more infrastructure work is needed. Retrospectively claiming exceptional circumstances are needed because there is no other way to meet a selected spatial growth option is not acceptable. The climate emergency should not be used as a justification to develop greenbelt land. Q-S8.1 – Settlements falling outside the chosen growth strategy: 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. Q-S10 – Any other comments: I am specifically opposed to development of land in the greenbelt areas in/around Weston under Wetherley 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.

Settlements falling outside the chosen growth strategy: 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.

Settlements falling outside the chosen growth strategy: 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.

QS4.1 Growth of existing settlements – Growth of existing settlements should only be considered where it does not require development in the greenbelt. Previous growth of existing settlements in non-greenbelt locations should not prevent further development and infrastructure should be invested to support further non-greenbelt development. Where growth of existing settlements cannot be assured without using greenbelt land, alternative solutions should be considered that do not involve development in greenbelt land. Q-S5.2 - New Settlements: I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non-greenbelt site. Q-S5.3 – Rail Corridors. I feel that the prioritisation of rail corridors may offer a sensible option for development. There is substantial scope to include development alongside rail corridors outside of the greenbelt. I feel development alongside rail corridors to the South of the region, explicitly avoiding greenbelt development should be supported. The plan outlines that an indicative 6000 new homes would be sufficient to support a new rail station, and there is ample geographical options to achieve this outside of the greenbelt. Additionally, this would reduce the likelihood of overcrowding existing areas/stations in locations with existing stations in the Greenbelt. Development in North Leamington is not appropriate to use Leamington Spa station as there is already heavy traffic congestion in people moving from the North to the South of the town. A new station in the greenbelt is unacceptable. The Climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land, this is a weak argument as there are other ways of mitigating against the climate emergency without developing on greenbelt. Q-S7.2 – Dispersed Development - For the remaining spatial growth options, I feel it is important that the priority is to avoid developing greenbelt land. The need for greenbelt development in each spatial option should be considered before selecting a specific spatial growth option. This is needed to fulfil NPPF “exceptional circumstances” principle. It is not acceptable to select a spatial option without first considering the need to develop greenbelt to deliver that option. Instead, it should be assessed whether another spatial growth option could be selected that requires less (or no) greenbelt development, and that option with the least greenbelt development should be selected, even if more infrastructure work is needed. Retrospectively claiming exceptional circumstances are needed because there is no other way to meet a selected spatial growth option is not acceptable. The climate emergency should not be used as a justification to develop greenbelt land. Q-S8.1 – Settlements falling outside the chosen growth strategy: I do not feel a threshold approach to small scale development is appropriate in greenbelt areas. I do not feel the plan should allow for more small scale growth developments to come forward in greenbelt areas. Q-S10 – Any other comments: I am specifically opposed to development of land in the greenbelt areas in/around Weston under Wetherley 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.

QS4.1 Growth of existing settlements – Growth of existing settlements should only be considered where it does not require development in the greenbelt. Previous growth of existing settlements in non-greenbelt locations should not prevent further development and infrastructure should be invested to support further non-greenbelt development. Where growth of existing settlements cannot be assured without using greenbelt land, alternative solutions should be considered that do not involve development in greenbelt land. Q-S5.2 - New Settlements: I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non-greenbelt site. Q-S5.3 – Rail Corridors. I feel that the prioritisation of rail corridors may offer a sensible option for development. There is substantial scope to include development alongside rail corridors outside of the greenbelt. I feel development alongside rail corridors to the South of the region, explicitly avoiding greenbelt development should be supported. The plan outlines that an indicative 6000 new homes would be sufficient to support a new rail station, and there is ample geographical options to achieve this outside of the greenbelt. Additionally, this would reduce the likelihood of overcrowding existing areas/stations in locations with existing stations in the Greenbelt. Development in North Leamington is not appropriate to use Leamington Spa station as there is already heavy traffic congestion in people moving from the North to the South of the town. A new station in the greenbelt is unacceptable. The Climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land, this is a weak argument as there are other ways of mitigating against the climate emergency without developing on greenbelt. Q-S7.2 – Dispersed Development - For the remaining spatial growth options, I feel it is important that the priority is to avoid developing greenbelt land. The need for greenbelt development in each spatial option should be considered before selecting a specific spatial growth option. This is needed to fulfil NPPF “exceptional circumstances” principle. It is not acceptable to select a spatial option without first considering the need to develop greenbelt to deliver that option. Instead, it should be assessed whether another spatial growth option could be selected that requires less (or no) greenbelt development, and that option with the least greenbelt development should be selected, even if more infrastructure work is needed. Retrospectively claiming exceptional circumstances are needed because there is no other way to meet a selected spatial growth option is not acceptable. The climate emergency should not be used as a justification to develop greenbelt land. Q-S8.1 – Settlements falling outside the chosen growth strategy: I do not feel a threshold approach to small scale development is appropriate in greenbelt areas. I do not feel the plan should allow for more small scale growth developments to come forward in greenbelt areas. Q-S10 – Any other comments: I am specifically opposed to development of land in the greenbelt areas in/around Weston under Wetherley 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.

I would like to comment on the South Warwickshire Local Plan Consultation with the following arguments: 1. The Green Belt north of Leamington is important for many reasons: - It is high quality agricultural land which should be safeguarded for the sake of national food security - Its footpaths offer recreational and health benefits for many people in the town of Leamington Spa who can access the area by foot. The number of people using footpaths increased hugely during periods of lockdowns and has continued since - It prevents a sprawling northwards of the town of Leamington Spa and forms a green "northern gateway" to the town. This in turn helps Leamington to maintain its setting and special character. - It helps to maintain the distinct identities of the towns of Kenilworth and Leamington Spa and prevents them from merging into one another. - It assists in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land in line with the government's "brownfield firsts" pledge. 2. It is not necessary or appropriate to develop the Green Belt north of Leamington because: - It is not in line with current Government policy - the statistic used in the Consultation in support of green belt development is misleading. This says that 54% of respondents support the exploration of green belt growth opportunities, without mentioning that 45% of respondents were developers, land owners and businesses. - The Green Belt north of Leamington fulfils all 5 of the stated purposes of the Green Belt - The Green Belt north of Leamington is high quality agricultural land which should be safeguarded for the sake of national food security - The planning team explored options which placed development outside of the Green Belt yet it has presented none of these in the consultation document.

I would like to comment with the following arguments: 1. The Green Belt north of Leamington is important for many reasons: - It is high quality agricultural land which should be safeguarded for the sake of national food security - Its footpaths offer recreational and health benefits for many people in the town of Leamington Spa who can access the area by foot. The number of people using footpaths increased hugely during periods of lockdowns and has continued since - It prevents a sprawling northwards of the town of Leamington Spa and forms a green "northern gateway" to the town. This in turn helps Leamington to maintain its setting and special character. - It helps to maintain the distinct identities of the towns of Kenilworth and Leamington Spa and prevents them from merging into one another. - It assists in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land in line with the government's "brownfield firsts" pledge. 2. It is not necessary or appropriate to develop the Green Belt north of Leamington because: - It is not in line with current Government policy - the statistic used in the Consultation in support of green belt development is misleading. This says that 54% of respondents support the exploration of green belt growth opportunities, without mentioning that 45% of respondents were developers, land owners and businesses. - The Green Belt north of Leamington fulfils all 5 of the stated purposes of the Green Belt - The Green Belt north of Leamington is high quality agricultural land which should be safeguarded for the sake of national food security - The planning team explored options which placed development outside of the Green Belt yet it has presented none of these in the consultation document.

Q-S4.1: Growth of existing settlements should only be considered where it does not require development in the greenbelt. Further growth of existing settlements in non-greenbelt locations should be encouraged and where necessary infrastructure should be improved to support this. Where growth of existing settlements cannot be secured without using greenbelt land, alternative solutions should be considered that do not involve development in greenbelt land, e.g. brownfield sites. Q-S8.1: 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. Q-S10: We are 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 Leamington/Coventry Greenbelt. The Climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land. This is a weak and bizarre argument. Sustainable development is perfectly possible 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). We 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 and the views expressed can in no way be considered representative of the whole population of the area. The first consultation did not give details of potential areas for development so residents were unaware of the impact and did not therefore participate. It is likely, given these very small numbers, that many of the responses were from developers or landowners who would directly benefit from such development (there were almost as many sites submitted as responses received!). The views of this tiny number of respondents should not be used as a basis for decision making and should not be used to justify development or review of the greenbelt.

Issue S6: As a member of Binswood ExServicemens Allotment Society I would like to express my concerns as to the possibility of using Green Belt Land in the areas surrounding Milverton & Blackdown for a potential housing development. I think the Green Belt land is very important to the wellbeing of the local community and strongly urge you to re-consider and look at 'brownfield' land first to find solutions. Our allotment site provides an open space which was vital in the pandemic days when it allowed people to get outside,we have a great community spirit people of all ages meet together it would be devastating if this was taken away from us The Green Belt around the North of Leamington fulfils the purpose of Green Belt land. The five stated purposes of Green Belt land are to: 1) Check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas 2) Prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another 3) Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment 4) Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns 5) Assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. The Green Belt land around the North of Leamington is highly valued and a truly lovely open space. As a local resident I know how vital/valuable it is to myself and lots of others for both their physical and mental health. It has stunning views and is a godsend to the local community ...especially in these changing times i.e.. Covid Pandemic/lockdowns. The land has lots of easily accessible public right of way footpaths across the fields. The farmland is high quality agricultural land and makes an important contribution to sustainability and security of food supply. This agricultural land provides employment and the mixed arable, grazing and wildlife refuge all helps to maintain the wonderful atmosphere of the village known as 'Old Milverton' ...which is a very short distance from the town of Leamington Spa, but it has a totally rural feel because of this highly valuable Green Belt land surrounding it. One of the most important reasons for a Green Belt is to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban lane. Hence, the "brownfield first" pledge. Warwick District Council should not be looking at Green Belt land to deliver housing. The Government has recently made it clear in a letter from the Secretary of State that local planning authorities such as Warwick District Council are not expected to review the Green Belt to deliver housing. Development to the Green Belt to the north of Leamington Spa would hugely reduce land that separates Kenilworth from Leamington Spa. A similar proposal to this was rejected less than 6 years ago. In fact, the planning inspector's response was the Local Plan for Warwick District stated a need to maintain the separate identity of villages such as Cubbington and to avoid reductions in the gap of land to Kenilworth. These are all still very valid reasons not to consider the use of this local Green Belt area.

It is beyond comprehension that this consultation has progressed to this position. This local area has been decimated by HS2. Residents are enduring regular and significant road closures leading to increased mental health pressure as we "try to live our lives" as best we can with daily commutes and school runs being a masterclass in logistics. It is impossible to drive to Leamington / Warwick, Kenilworth and Coventry with being brutally reminded of the impact of HS2. Do you not think this local area has "already taken one for the team"! QS4.1 Growth of existing settlements - Growth of existing settlements should only be considered where it does not require development in the greenbelt. Previous growth of existing settlements in non-greenbelt locations should not prevent further development and infrastructure should be invested to support further non-greenbelt development. Where growth of existing settlements cannot be assured without using greenbelt land, alternative solutions should be considered that do not involve development in greenbelt land. Q-S5.2 - New Settlements: I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non-greenbelt site. Q-S5.3 - Rail Corridors. I feel that the prioritisation of rail corridors may offer a sensible option for development. There is substantial scope to include development alongside rail corridors outside of the greenbelt. Il feel development alongside rail corridors to the South of the region, explicitly avoiding greenbelt development should be supported. The plan outlines that an indicative 6000 new homes would be sufficient to support a new rail station, and there is ample geographical options to achieve this outside of the greenbelt. Additionally, this would reduce the likelihood of overcrowding existing areas/stations in locations with existing stations in the Greenbelt. Development in North Leamington is not appropriate to use Leamington Spa station as there is already heavy traffic congestion in people moving from the North to the South of the town. A new station in the greenbelt is unacceptable. The Climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land, this is a weak argument as there are other ways of mitigating against the climate emergency without developing on greenbelt. Q-S7.2 - For the remaining spatial growth options, I feel it is important that the priority is to avoid developing greenbelt land. The need for greenbelt development in each spatial option should be considered before selecting a specific spatial growth option. This is needed to fulfil NPPF "exceptional circumstances" principle. It is not acceptable to select a spatial option without first considering the need to develop greenbelt to deliver that option. Instead, it should be assessed whether another spatial growth option could be selected that requires less (or no) greenbelt development, and that option with the least greenbelt development should be selected, even if more infrastructure work is needed. Retrospectively claiming exceptional circumstances are needed because there is no other way to meet a selected spatial growth option is not acceptable. The climate emergency should not be used as a justification to develop greenbelt land. Q-S8.1 - Settlements falling outside the chosen growth strategy: Il 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. Q-S10 - Any other comments: I am specifically opposed to development of land in the greenbelt areas in/around Weston under Wetherley 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.

Settlements falling outside the chosen growth strategy: 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.

Re: Proposal to review Green Belt Boundaries in North Leamington As a resident of North Leamington and an allottment holder in the area I wish to express my concerns regarding current proposals to review the use of the Green Belt in this area. I , together with three generations of my family, highly value the Green Belt around the North of Leamington. As a well used open space it is very valuable to us and our neighbours for both our physical and mental health. It is visually of a very high quality and has a number of easily accessible public right of way across the fields. As residents we are able to access healthy outdoor exercise without, very importantly, using our cars. Thus both the health of residents and of the environment is maintained. If this open space was not available one alternative would be to drive to a gym for exercise - car usage would increase and the benifits of outdoor exercise would be lost. Furthermoor, the less well off amongst us may well not have this option, once again disadvantaging this particular section of our community. A walk along the local footpaths takes one through farmland of mixed arable and grazing. One can also experience a wealth of wildlife sustained by the variety of environments along the way. So not only does the area contribute towards a sustainable local food supply, but also towards biodiversity in the flora and fauna. The allotments in the area are in demand and as a result are well cared for and productive. These provide local residents with the very satisfying activity of tending the soil to produce healthy organic food, alongside of course outdoor physical, mental and community activity. The allotments are a highly valued part of our life in North Leamington. [Redacted text] I know that many children are detatched from the natural world and lacking in outdoor activity. Many have no knowledge of where their food comes from, other than "the supermarket". Reducing easy and free access to open spaces, and the opportunity for families to grow their own vegetables and fruit, can only add to this sad state of affairs.

[Redacted text] I have concerns in regards to the planned development [in Wootton Wawen]. In the last year we have seen a vast increase in developments and especially on Stratford road. [There are] vans, building supplies lorries etc, parked on pavements, driving 60miles an hour. We finding it difficult to get out of our gates at times. Not to mention the temporary traffic lights ( at least 4 times this year) [Redacted text] and not being able to come out of our drive. We have problems with drainage, which indicates there is some problems with the new houses being connected to sewage. We had few unexpected power cuts where we were not notified of it. The trees are being cut down. The developers are cutting trees without permissions. I feel that [there] has been enough new houses added to [the area and] using Green belt land would be detrimental. We have all been very respectful of the green belt and I feel as we should protect it. I understand there is a need for more houses but these should be moved towards the station, school, shops and not to a main road and green belt area. Please do consider the environment. We need trees and green belt to be protected and not destroyed!

Q-S3.2: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire: 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. Stratford-upon-Avon, identified as the Main Town is a sustainable location for development and development at the Site would allow for a sustainable development close to existing services and public transport. 3.18. As set out in the Sustainability Appraisal, the site is within the Broad Location ‘Stratford Northeast’ which the SA shows is least constrained in terms of environmental receptors (see Table at 4.15.1). 3.19. It is clear that this Site (Call for Sites ref: 461) is located in an entirely sustainable location and should be positively considered as a location for growth. Issues S6: A Review of Green Belt boundaries 3.21. 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. 3.22. 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. 3.23. 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 Feb 2023 | COT | P21-1652 11 reviewing Green Belt boundaries sustainable patterns of development should be taken into account. 3.24. 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. 3.25. 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. 3.26. The Site is currently located within the Green Belt. The Vision Document which accompanies this representation (see Appendix 1) assesses the site against the five Green Belt purposes and demonstrates that the release of this Site from the Green Belt would not compromise the purposes. The Site (Call for Sites ref: 461) benefits from strong, defensible boundaries, notably the existing road infrastructure, is well contained and would read as part of the existing settlement. Q-S7.2 For each growth option, please indicate whether you feel it is an appropriate strategy for South Warwickshire: 3.26. 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. 3.27. 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. 3.28. 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. 3.29. 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? Q-S8.2 For sites coming forward as part of this threshold approach, what do you think would be an appropriate size limit for individual sites? 3.30. 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. 3.31. 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. 3.32. 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 of development where appropriate would support greater on-site affordable housing provision. Q-S9: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire 3.34. 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. 3.35. 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. 3.36. In addition, settlement boundaries will need to be reviewed and amended to take account of new allocations. 3.37. 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: 461) within the development boundary for Stratford to deliver sustainable residential growth.

Comments for 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). Land ref 174 current provides a green belt buffet to the urban area to the north of Leamington Spa, to develop these 69 acres of green belt is a significant departure from the over-arching principles of the current local plan which seeks to 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 (particularly supermarkets) and will drive significant traffic through the town centre (of which there are only a handful of routes as a result of the river and railway line)which does not have the capacity for such a significant increase. This has been acutely felt over the last year or two with the part closure of Princes Drive for bridge repair works and the disruption caused by the gas work leaks at the Vitsoe roundabout. 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 the closest of which has c.90 children per year group and no available expansion space (so much so that the junior school do not have the room to change for PE and as such are required to stay in sports kit all day) 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) ) 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. It would be more sustainable to propose an increase in housing to the smaller villages in and around Leamington spa where small local businesses would benefit from an increase in population and the schools have more capacity to absorb an increase in students and in some cases land on which to expand.

I'm an allotment gardener on the Binswood Ex-Servicemen’s Allotment Society and a local resident since 2001. I write to express real concern about the (albeit extraordinarily vague) proposals in the South Warwickshire Local Plan. From what I can understand of the document, there is a real danger that building development could occur across the Green belt of South Warwickshire with significant swathes of prime agricultural land lost, and what the document terms 'urban extension' taking place. In addition there is a real risk of the loss of identity of the villages north of Leamington. The plan, in my view puts us on a path to creating a vast conurbation between Kenilworth, Coventry, Warwick & Leamington. I'm almost at a loss to believe that WDC think this is a feasible & acceptable proposal. [Redacted Text]. The purpose of the Green Belt have been clearly stated 1) Check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas 2) Prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another 3) Assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment 4) Preserve the setting and special character of historic towns 5) Assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. I don't see anything in this document that safeguards or delivers on the above. The proposals ignore completely the legitimate function served by the Green Belt, as well as the latest utterances from the Secretary of State regarding a "brownfield first' pledge. The Green Belt around the North of Leamington is highly valued open space and contributes greatly to the physical and mental health of allotment holders and local residents alike. We currently have HS2 cutting a huge scar through the Green Belt area. [Redacted Text]. We don't need any more loss of the Green Belt to building or housing. I urge you to halt the development of the Plan until it has been reviewed further to fall into line with Government guidance and the standing Planning Officer recommendations. I strongly suggest that the Council explore alternative options for housing development rather than destroying this part of south Warwickshire.

Q-S8.1 Settlements falling outside the chosen growth strategy Greenbelt was introduced to be treated with respect and any decision that impacts on it needs to be avoided in favour of brownsites better lent to changes. The plan should disallow further attempts to encroach on the greenbelt areas. Q-S10 Any Other Comments I oppose the development of the greenvbelt areas in and around Weston-under-Wetherley. HS2 has severely and irreversably destroyed a swath of the benefit of the greenbelt area of North Warwickshire and as no benefit will be felt locally to compensate for the intrusion, I believe enough impact has already been made in North Warwickshire.

I am a resident of Henley in Arden & I would submit the following comments regarding the proposed SWLP. ·I fail to see how the SWLP proposal will align with the Levelling Up & Regeneration Bill & the 25 Year Environment Plan. Specific references are made to greater protection of green belt, emphasis on utilizing brownfield sites as a priority, abolition of top-down housing figures, emphasis on localism etc along with the ceasing of land banking. ·Henley lies between larger urban developments. The green belt surrounding Henley serves to prevent urban sprawl. ·The SWLP has been partly developed to take into account the overspill from Birmingham & the Black Country. However, on the BBC Politics Live program broadcast last week, Kevin McFadden, MP Wolverhampton South, stated that he was against the usage of Green Belt. He cited that there was ample Brown Fields in his own constituency that could be used for development before the use of Green Field sites. There are also numerous MP’s from all parties who oppose Green Belt development, as indicated by parliamentary HANSARD records. There are 1.2M homes in England that could be built upon Brownfield sites. ·The proposed development is inconsistent with commitments made in the existing planning policies. ·There is only one road through Henley. It servers as a main thoroughfare, parking spaces (some of which require reversing into the passing traffic) are on both sides of the road and are fully utilised. Delivery vehicles to the high street shops, along with Council refuse lorries are often forced to double park, restricting traffic flow to single lane. For safety reasons, traffic calming measures are planned to be tried this year. In addition the area is surrounded by extremely narrow country lanes which would not cope with additional volumes of traffic. Therefore, I fail to see how the existing road networks could cope with the substantial increase in traffic, which would be associated with the proposed housing & mixed development in the SWLP proposal. ·The above does not take into consideration the impact additional traffic & associated congestion would have on road safety & just as importantly air quality issues. ·The SWLP implies that there are good transport links in Henley. This is plainly not the case. There are only twelve scheduled bus services per day between Birmingham & Stratford. There are no bus services that travel East to West. The rail link between Stratford & Birmingham is scheduled to run hourly. The journey time from Henley to Birmingham is forty minutes. There are also limited parking spaces at Henley station. The existing travel services are not sufficient to meet the needs of the existing population of Henley. ·Infrastructure in the Henley district is antiquated. The mains water supply in the outlying areas is continually having to be ‘patched up’. There are no mains gas or sewage connections in the outlying areas. ·What provisions will be made to address the possibility of flooding? It is a fact that Henley town is susceptible to flooding. What is not so well known is that some of the outlying areas are also susceptible to flooding. The fields to the South East of Henley act as ‘run off’ areas. Once the fields are fully saturated, the surrounding Lanes are liable to flooding. What impact will proposed development have on flood plains? ·From available data the population of Henley grew by 10% between 2000 & 2015. However, there has been no investment in infrastructure for decades. The lower estimate of the plan lists 500 new homes. This must surely more than double the existing population of Henley. Again, begs the question as to why the SDLP does not address infrastructure. There is zero faith in developers addressing / fulfilling infrastructure commitments. My biggest concern is that the SWLP proposal, even at the lower estimate of growth, will completely destroy the character of an historic town. I fully accept that growth is required & there is a genuine need for affordable housing. However, surely this can be achieved in a sensible, pragmatic approach that takes into consideration the environment, existing infrastructure, heritage, tourism & most importantly ‘localism’. The current SWLP growth proposal is totally out of balance with the existing Town, community & environment. Please let the local communities have a greater input into the decision making when reviewing the SWLP. I am sure you will find that its a lot less about NIMBYISM & and more about developing communities & services that reflect local requirements, both current & future.

QS4.1 Growth of existing settlements – Growth of existing settlements should only be considered where it does not require development in the greenbelt. Previous growth of existing settlements in non-greenbelt locations should not prevent further development and infrastructure should be invested to support further non-greenbelt development. Where growth of existing settlements cannot be assured without using greenbelt land, alternative solutions should be considered that do not involve development in greenbelt land. Q-S5.2 - New Settlements: I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non-greenbelt site. Q-S5.3 – Rail Corridors. I feel that the prioritisation of rail corridors may offer a sensible option for development. There is substantial scope to include development alongside rail corridors outside of the greenbelt. I feel development alongside rail corridors to the South of the region, explicitly avoiding greenbelt development should be supported. The plan outlines that an indicative 6000 new homes would be sufficient to support a new rail station, and there is ample geographical options to achieve this outside of the greenbelt. Additionally, this would reduce the likelihood of overcrowding existing areas/stations in locations with existing stations in the Greenbelt. Development in North Leamington is not appropriate to use Leamington Spa station as there is already heavy traffic congestion in people moving from the North to the South of the town. A new station in the greenbelt is unacceptable. The Climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land, this is a weak argument as there are other ways of mitigating against the climate emergency without developing on greenbelt. Q-S7.2 – For the remaining spatial growth options, I feel it is important that the priority is to avoid developing greenbelt land. The need for greenbelt development in each spatial option should be considered before selecting a specific spatial growth option. This is needed to fulfil NPPF “exceptional circumstances” principle. It is not acceptable to select a spatial option without first considering the need to develop greenbelt to deliver that option. Instead, it should be assessed whether another spatial growth option could be selected that requires less (or no) greenbelt development, and that option with the least greenbelt development should be selected, even if more infrastructure work is needed. Retrospectively claiming exceptional circumstances are needed because there is no other way to meet a selected spatial growth option is not acceptable. The climate emergency should not be used as a justification to develop greenbelt land. Q-S8.1 – Settlements falling outside the chosen growth strategy: 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. Q-S10 – Any other comments: I am specifically opposed to development of land in the greenbelt areas in/around Weston under Wetherley 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.

QS4.1 Growth of existing settlements – Growth of existing settlements should only be considered where it does not require development in the greenbelt. Previous growth of existing settlements in non-greenbelt locations should not prevent further development and infrastructure should be invested to support further non-greenbelt development. Where growth of existing settlements cannot be assured without using greenbelt land, alternative solutions should be considered that do not involve development in greenbelt land. Q-S5.2 - New Settlements: I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non-greenbelt site. Q-S5.3 – Rail Corridors. I feel that the prioritisation of rail corridors may offer a sensible option for development. There is substantial scope to include development alongside rail corridors outside of the greenbelt. I feel development alongside rail corridors to the South of the region, explicitly avoiding greenbelt development should be supported. The plan outlines that an indicative 6000 new homes would be sufficient to support a new rail station, and there is ample geographical options to achieve this outside of the greenbelt. Additionally, this would reduce the likelihood of overcrowding existing areas/stations in locations with existing stations in the Greenbelt. Development in North Leamington is not appropriate to use Leamington Spa station as there is already heavy traffic congestion in people moving from the North to the South of the town. A new station in the greenbelt is unacceptable. The Climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land, this is a weak argument as there are other ways of mitigating against the climate emergency without developing on greenbelt. Q-S7.2 – Dispersed Development - For the remaining spatial growth options, I feel it is important that the priority is to avoid developing greenbelt land. The need for greenbelt development in each spatial option should be considered before selecting a specific spatial growth option. This is needed to fulfil NPPF “exceptional circumstances” principle. It is not acceptable to select a spatial option without first considering the need to develop greenbelt to deliver that option. Instead, it should be assessed whether another spatial growth option could be selected that requires less (or no) greenbelt development, and that option with the least greenbelt development should be selected, even if more infrastructure work is needed. Retrospectively claiming exceptional circumstances are needed because there is no other way to meet a selected spatial growth option is not acceptable. The climate emergency should not be used as a justification to develop greenbelt land. Q-S8.1 – Settlements falling outside the chosen growth strategy: 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. Q-S10 – Any other comments: I am specifically opposed to development of land in the greenbelt areas in/around Weston under Wetherley 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.

9.1. Rainier Developments is promoting land east of Birmingham Road for residential development, inclusive of on-site green infrastructure. 9.2. The land comprises to adjacent fields, currently in agricultural use, with the boundary defined by a fence and sporadic trees and hedge planting. The site boundaries are well defined by boundary vegetation. The site is on a road junction, with Birmingham Road to the west and the A46 to the north. To the south is existing residential development, known as Hathaway Gardens, and to the east is agricultural land. In total the site comprises of 3.24ha (please see Site Location Plan enclosed at Appendix 3). 9.3. The site is immediately adjacent to the built-up edge of Stratford-upon-Avon and the area is characterised by existing residential development. Stratford-upon-Avon Parkway Railway Station and the Park & Ride is located to the west, also south of the A46. 9.4. To accompany this representation, a Vision Document has been prepared and is included at Appendix 1 to this representation. 9.5. This Vision Document, including the Illustrative Masterplan, demonstrates the deliverability of the Site and establishes an area capable of accommodating development without any adverse effects, for example in terms of flood risk. Sustainability Appraisal SA 9.6. This site is located in the general area identified as Broad Location: Stratford-upon-Avon Northeast which is the best performing Broad Location associated with Stratford-upon-Avon. This Site is shown as unconstrainted and it is clear that this site would form a logical extension and should form part of this location for growth. 9.7. The assessment of this Stratford-upon-Avon Northeast against the SA objectives is presented at Section B.26 of Appendix B. It is acknowledged that, at this stage, the assessment covers a wide area and the ratings will not be applicable to each part of the Broad Areas. Each SA Objective is considered with specific reference to the site below: 9.8. SA Objective 1 Climate Change: The site would deliver circa 90 dwellings in a sustainable location, close to existing development, services and facilities, and public transport links. The Site would support the delivery of 20-minute neighbourhoods to reduce travel to meet everyday needs as it would benefit from access to existing service and facilities in Stratford. 9.9. SA Objective 2 Flood Risk: The site is entirely within Flood Zone 1, land at lowest risk of flooding. There is a small amount of surface water flood risk in the corner adjacent to Bishopton Roundabout which could be addressed… 9.10. SA Objective 3 Biodiversity, Flora, Fauna and Geodiversity: The site is not designated as or in close proximity of a Special Conservation Area (SAC), Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), National Nature Reserve (NNR), ancient woodland, Local Nature Reserve, Local Wildlife Site, Local Green Space (LGS) or priority habitat. It is noted that the coincidence of the Broad Location with Welcombe Hills Local Nature Reserve (LNR) is identified as a potential negative impact however the site is well separated from the LNR by distance and intervening development. 9.11. SA Objective 4 Landscape: The site is characterised by its proximity to existing residential development and transport infrastructure, notable the A46 trunk road. It is well contained by the existing development and infrastructure and would not breach the established build lines associated with Stratford and therefore would need read as an intrusion on the wider landscape. 9.12. SA Objective 5 Cultural Heritage: The site is not located in proximity to any designated heritage assets or Conservation Areas. 9.13. SA Objective 6 Pollution: The site is located adjacent to the Stratford Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). It is also located adjacent to the A46. It should be noted that mitigation is achievable for air quality impacts, including for example additional tree planting, installation of electric vehicle charging points and increased use of public transport through sustainably located development, such as at this Site. It should also be noted that the Site is not within a Source Protection Zone. 9.14. Objective 7 Natural Resources: The site is shown on Natural England mapping as Grade 3 agricultural land. The Site would only result in a minor loss of agricultural land. The Site is not within a Mineral Safeguarding Area. 9.15. Objective 8 Waste: A development of circa 90 houses would generate a level of household waste however this can be managed with provision of suitable recycling facilities for all households. 9.16. Objective 9 Housing Provision: The Site would deliver housing in a sustainable location. This would include affordable housing. 9.17. Objective 10 Health: The site benefits from frequent bus services on Birmingham Road which provide access to Stratford Town Centre. This provides sustainable access to Stratford Hospital and GP surgeries located in Stratford. It is noted that the closest A&E department is located at Warwick Hospital. The closest park to the site is Badgers Way Park, located across Birmingham Road to the south. There are various other local green spaces in the area and sustainable travel options to access leisure and recreation facilities in Stratford town centre. The site is not crossed by any public rights of way (PRoW), the closest PRoW is Footpath 334/SB1/1 which connects from Birmingham Road to the south of the site and continues north towards Park Wood. 9.18. Objective 11 Accessibility and 12 Education: The site benefits from existing bus stops on Birmingham Road and frequent local services to Stratford and Solihull. The site is also located in proximity to Stratford Parkway Train Station and Park & Ride facility. This is supported by the Stratford North West connectivity analysis which rates the Site as Grade B (green). There are also various local services and facilities within the local area, including two primary schools within a mile of the site and a secondary school within 1.5 miles of the site. 9.19. Objective 13 Economy: The site is well located to benefit from existing economic and employment opportunities associated with Stratford-upon-Avon. Summary 9.20. In accordance with national policy, this section sets out the suitability, achievability and deliverability of this Site. Suitability 9.21. The Vision Document indicates how a scheme of circa 90 dwellings can be achieved having regard to the site constraints and opportunities. Feb 2023 | COT | P21-1652 32 9.22. The site benefits from a highly sustainable location on the edge of Stratford-upon-Avon and is well placed to meet the housing needs of Stratford and the surrounding area. The site is well-placed to ensure easy access to a range of services and facilities including public transport. 9.23. The Vision Document includes a detailed access plan demonstrating how access could be provided from Birmingham Road. This could include improvements to the existing footpath network on this stretch of road. 9.24. The site is not subject to any statutory nature or heritage designations. The site is entirely within Flood Zone 1 which represents the lowest risk of flooding. The Site could deliver sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) as part of any development. 9.25. In view of the above, there are no known constraints which would prevent development of this site. Deliverability 9.26. Rainier have a land interest in the Site and are promoting the site for residential development. The Site has already been submitted as part of the Call for Sites exercise associated with the Scoping Consultation in 2021, and accompanying representations were also submitted. 9.27. Rainier is a strategic land and development company operating across the UK and with a strong track record for delivering high-quality development. 9.28. Rainier’s willingness for residential development to be delivered on this site is demonstrated through the submission of this representation and previous representations throughout the preparation of the South Warwickshire Local Plan. 9.29. As set out above, there are no known constraints which would prevent the delivery of residential development on this site. Availability 9.30. Rainier have a land interest in this Site and are actively promoting the Site for residential development. The site is immediately available and could deliver housing in the early part of the Plan period.

I would like to comment on the South Warwickshire Local Plan Consultation with the following arguments: 1. The Green Belt north of Leamington is important for many reasons: - It is high quality agricultural land which should be safeguarded for the sake of national food security - Its footpaths offer recreational and health benefits for many people in the town of Leamington Spa who can access the area by foot. The number of people using footpaths increased hugely during periods of lockdowns and has continued since - It prevents a sprawling northwards of the town of Leamington Spa and forms a green "northern gateway" to the town. This in turn helps Leamington to maintain its setting and special character. - It helps to maintain the distinct identities of the towns of Kenilworth and Leamington Spa and prevents them from merging into one another. - It assists in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land in line with the government's "brownfield firsts" pledge. 2. It is not necessary or appropriate to develop the Green Belt north of Leamington because: - It is not in line with current Government policy - the statistic used in the Consultation in support of green belt development is misleading. This says that 54% of respondents support the exploration of green belt growth opportunities, without mentioning that 45% of respondents were developers, land owners and businesses. - The Green Belt north of Leamington fulfils all 5 of the stated purposes of the Green Belt - The Green Belt north of Leamington is high quality agricultural land which should be safeguarded for the sake of national food security - The planning team explored options which placed development outside of the Green Belt yet it has presented none of these in the consultation document.