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

Issue S1 – Green and Blue Corridors 5.8.1 St. Modwen fully support the integration of green and blue infrastructure within large scale growth options. Our vision for Land East of Southam provides a new country park and extensive spaces for blue and green infrastructure that will significantly enhance ecology, biodiversity and access to semi natural spaces for future and existing residents of Southam. The development will feature the planting of street trees, creating parks, providing private gardens, allotments, sustainable urban drainage systems, wildlife areas, woodlands, natural flood management schemes and hedgerows. 5.8.2 We would also raise the evidence base requirements for New Strategic Nature Corridors and the need to understand the requirements of these objectives before significant decisions are taken on future Growth Options. A detailed plan for nature corridors would ensure all factors relating to growth decision were known. Issue S4 - Growth of existing settlements 5.9.1 St. Modwen strongly support the need for sustainable urban extensions to meet the future growth needs of the SWLP. Towns like Southam provide varying levels of services and facilities to meet the needs of the people who live or work in and around them. Planning growth of a strategic scale allows key facilities and services to be provided to enhance the life of existing and new residents. It also allows ambitions such as the 20 minute neighbourhood to be embedded in new design and master planning ambitions. 5.9.2 Southam’s baseline assessment fully supports future growth for the town without significant environmental, greenbelt policy or landscape impacts. Southam remains a highly sustainable location for future housing growth. 5.9.3 St. Modwen notes the connectivity, accessibility and density analysis undertaken by the Council and would support further robust and detailed analysis of growth options. For Southam, an assessment to date of Broad Locations for up to 2000 new homes, mix of uses and associated infrastructure suggests that the South East arc offers the most beneficial direction for growth. St. Modwen believe a more detailed and robust assessment of options including our proposed vision for land East of Southam would highlight key opportunities to maximise the potential delivery in line with the Strategic Objectives of the SWLP. Issue S6: A review of Green Belt boundaries 5.10.1 St. Modwen strongly agrees that any preferred Growth Strategy needs to factor in the impact of new development on the Green Belt. To date the ‘policy off’ approach and consultation on the potential for a future Green Belt review have deferred key decisions on the overall spatial strategy for the SWLP. It is clear that Option 1 Rail Corridors and Option 2 Sustainable Transport both favour significant loss of Green Belt land. 5.10.2 We note that an initial very high-level initial assessment of Green Belt was undertaken for the New Settlement identification. St. Modwen support an early comprehensive review of the Green Belt to establish the impact of proposed New Towns and smaller settlement extensions on the NPPF Para 139 ‘5 purposes of Green Belt’. The findings of this technical analysis then need to be assessed against the relative impacts on all Growth Options with a suitable weighting applied to land that has negative impacts when measured against the national and local Green Belt policy.

I write primarily with reference to 97 hectares in the Parish of Weston-under- Wetherley belonging to Warwickshire County Council indicated as suitable for Mixed Development in their Submission. It is extremely difficult to follow your on-line portal hence my written response to your Consultation. My responses cover QVS. 3,4,5,7,8 and 10. This land currently comprises two Smallholdings which provide a rare opportunity for aspiring Farmers to get a Starter Farm and they should be preserved as such. The village of Weston-under-Wetherley doubled in size in the year 2000 after the closure of Weston Hospital when 70 new houses were constructed on the site. A Parish Plan was completed in 2013 when every household in the village was consulted. To the question "Would you agree/disagree to further residential development in the Village" the response was 98% negative. At that time Warwick District Planning Department confirmed to the Parish Plan that no further development was envisaged for Weston-under-Wetherley. We are currently beset with workings for HS2 which bisects our Parish and this site. I am totally against the possibility of Mixed Development of 97 hectares in the Village of Weston, currently all designated as Green Belt. Approximately one third of this area is a flood plain from the River Leam Our access road B4453 is totally inadequate to take any additional traffic and certainly nothing like 97 hectares of mixed development. At the Southam/Hunningham end the only access to the two current Smallholdings is adjacent to a single -lane bridge, Grade 2 listed over the River Leam. The fundamental point is that this 97 hectare site is farmland designated Green Belt and there is no over-riding reason for a change to Mixed Development.

Ref: South Warwickshire Local Plan and Land to the North Side of Wasperton Lane Barford(Title Ref: WK (342330). Dear Sirs, In respect of the above and further to my previous submission of which I believe to be a strong argument for including this parcel of land in the South Warwickshire Local Plan whereby resubmit the suggestion for its inclusion in your consultations. Both the area plan and the aerial photograph of the land which I have enclosed clearly show that the land and its development would be a natural progression for expansion of the housing estate within the village of Barford. May I sincerely hope that you will be able to accommodate the site option I have herewith put forward and that I might possibly hear from you within due course.

South Staffordshire Council welcomes the opportunity to submit comments at this early stage of the plan preparation process of the Joint South Warwickshire Local Plan 2050. The Council supports the decision to commit to the production of a new joint plan for Stratford-on-Avon and Warwick District Councils. The range of topics identified in the Issues and Options document does appear to broadly reflect the range of challenges and opportunities which need to be addressed by the new local plan. We support South Warwickshire taking a proactive approach towards meeting their housing need, recognising the issues with the standard method for the Coventry and Warwickshire Housing Market Area and promoting an alternative approach. We also support section H4 of the Plan which considers housing need arising from outside of South Warwickshire including from the Greater Birmingham & Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA). South Staffordshire District Council and Stratford-on-Avon District Council have been active members of the GBBCHMA Technical Officers Group since it was established in 2017 and both authorities have contributed to discussions relating to the delivery of unmet housing need within in the GBBCHMA. Both authorities are also party to the emerging 2022 GBBCHMA Development Needs Group Statement of Common Ground, which seeks to provide a programme of work and governance structure to address the housing shortfalls arising from the HMA. We therefore support the South Warwickshire Plan anticipating making provision for meeting a proportion of the shortfall from the GBBCHMA and encourage continued engagement with the GBBCHMA members. South Staffordshire Council has recently published an updated Gypsy and Traveller Assessment which has identified a need for 121 pitches during the plan period to 2039. South Staffordshire Council wrote to Stratford-on-Avon District Council (and other GBBCHMA and neighbouring authorities) in August 2022 where we set out that we had only identified a supply of 37 pitches to allocate against a 5-year requirement of 72 pitches. In the letter we set out the steps we had taken to explore supply options including exploring options in the Green Belt, options on publicly owned land, and options for new pitches as part of proposed housing allocations. In a Statement of Common Ground agreed in January 2023 between South Staffordshire and Stratford-on-Avon District Council’s paragraph 16 states: ‘In SSDC’s view, the established Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market (GBBCHMA) is clear evidence of a functional link between both authorities and therefore requires that both authorities work together to address cross boundary housing matters (including Gypsy and Traveller provision). SoADC’s most recent response to the August 2022 correspondence stated that in view of the weak links between the two authorities and the likelihood that any provision made in Stratford-onAvon would not in reality meet actual needs arising in South Staffs, SoADC does not consider it appropriate to take unmet needs from South Staffs. Notwithstanding this, SoADC is keen to work with authorities across the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area (GBBCHMA) in respect of evidence gathering to better understand these functional relationships. SSDC acknowledges that it has less of a functional relationship with SoADC than it does with some other authorities within the GBBCHMA, but believes it cannot be assumed that traveller families would be unwilling to relocate to a public site in SoADC’s administrative area if this secured them a permanent pitch. SoADC are Planning for Gypsies and Travellers through the preparation of the South Warwickshire Local Plan and have commissioned a GTAA to help inform that process. No decisions have yet been made about how needs will be met. In SSDC’s view it is therefore currently unclear as to what extent SoADC may or may not be able to assist in meeting unmet pitch need arising from SSDC until work on SoADC’s has been progressed.’ Within the Issues and Options Document, pitches and plots for gypsies, travellers and travelling showpeople are considered under Issue H6. Under this Issue the Plan states: ‘There are not enough sites across South Warwickshire for this type of accommodation and so we need to plan for more, up to date evidence is currently being prepared to identify what the need is for pitches and plots across South Warwickshire up to 2050. This may include a combination of both permanent and transit pitches and sites.’ We consider that the evidence being prepared should consider the links between South Warwickshire and South Staffordshire and we request that the South Warwickshire Local Plan considers the same steps that South Staffordshire has taken in exploring the four options for new pitches as set out in our letter dated 8th August 2022, including option for publicly run sites. As part of this we ask that you proactively explore whether any of South Staffordshire’s unmet need for pitches can be accommodated through proposals on existing or new public sites in the South Warwickshire Local Plan.

With regards to the proposed development of Green Belt in South Warwickshire then I would like to provide the following comments, some of which I have already included via the website. As a [local resident] with a particular interest in ensuring the fields running alongside Leicester Lane are not destroyed for development, my comments are to be considered for the whole plan not just those which are in the immediate vicinity. The Green Belt exists for a reason, namely that some wise men and women who went before us saw the need to protect our land from over-development; It seems incredulous therefore that when we now know what the impacts of climate change and land destruction bring that we should even be considering the further development of Green Belt in any other way than one that brings a positive impact on the environment- the plans talk of being having neutral impacts however surely it is clear that we now need to have plans which have positive impacts on reducing C02 wherever possible. Where do the plans allow for agricultural land to be retained or indeed increased? This is of particular relevance to the site being considered alongside Leicester Lane which is currently used for agricultural purposes. When we are currently experiencing shortages of fruit and vegetables in our supermarkets it seems incredible to me that we should be considering turning agricultural land into housing. Should housing development plans be progressed further in the Blakedown region (174) then I would have the following specific comments: .How would the local schooling accommodate the additional children- even now they have difficulties finding spaces to accommodate even the small numbers of Ukranian children who have been welcomed into the community; .The North of Leamington is going to be negatively impacted by HS2 in the future, with the resulting loss of wildlife habitat already being experienced in Cubbington Woods etc.., so further habitat destruction in the region is to be strongly discouraged. I hope these comments can be taken into consideration in the development of the SWLP as it progresses to what I hope will be the best outcome for the existing and future residents of this area.

QS4.1 Growth of existing settlements. This should only be considered if it does not require greenbelt land, where growth of existing areas cannot assure development without use of Greenbelt land further alternatives should be considered to make certain greenbelt land is not used. Q-S5.2 New Settlements I do not accept to consider development of a new settlement on greenbelt land. There are ample non greenbelt options for new settlements, this surely gives priority to development on non-greenbelt land. Q-S5.3 Rail corridors I feel the prioritisation of rail corridors could offer an option for development. Development alongside rail corridors to the South of the region avoiding greenbelt land should be supported. Development in North Leamington Spa would not be appropriate as Leamington Spa station already causes heavy congestion to the area. A new station in the greenbelt is not acceptable. Q-S8.1 Settlements falling outside the chosen growth Strategy I do not accept a threshold approach to small scale development is appropriate in greenbelt areas. Q-S10 Any other comments. I am strongly opposed to development of land in greenbelt areas especially in and around Weston under Wetherley. Leave our greenbelt areas alone we need our land for farming and to help feed our own country not disfigure with developments an greenbelt land anywhere.

Q-S1: As it is yet unknown what Local Nature Recovery Strategies are to cover and to what strategic detail, it is recommended that the sub-regional Green Infrastructure continues to be the main evidence base for local plans within the sub-region. This document records Green Infrastructure Assets(both Green and Blue) and how they interact with surrounding habitats. The document also identifies national ecological corridors and has the potential to identify more local corridors such as those in urban areas. As the strategy is governed by the Planning Authorities within Warwickshire Coventry and Solihull it can be adapted to pick up the results from this consultation and, if requested, integrated into the mapping and subsequent policy formation. Recommendations: • SWLP identifies Green Infrastructure Assets in line with the recently produced Natural England Green Infrastructure Toolkit • SWLP identifies ecological (blue and green) corridors through the WCS Green Infrastructure strategy • SWLP has a policy that supports the retention and enhancement of Green Infrastructure (in combination with other habitat, species and Environmental Net Gain policies) throughout its area. Q-S3.2: 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. This approach allows for consideration of wider issues in relation to sustainability and we therefore support this. However, broader sustainability issues should include consideration of ecological value and protected species and habitats.

South Warwickshire Local Plan Part 1: Issues and Options Consultation Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your consultation, we have some specific comments to make on your plan. Please keep us informed when your plans are further developed when we will be able to offer more detailed comments and advice. Position Statement As a water company we have an obligation to provide water supplies and sewage treatment capacity for future development. It is important for us to work collaboratively with Local Planning Authorities to provide relevant assessments on the impacts of future developments and to provide advice regarding policy wording on other relevant areas such as water efficiency, Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS), biodiversity, and blue green infrastructure. Where more detail is provided on site allocations, we will provide specific comments on the suitability of the site with respect to the water and sewerage network. In the instances where there may be a concern over the capacity of the network, we may look to undertake modelling to better understand the potential risk. For most developments there is unlikely to be an issue connecting. However, where an issue is identified, we will look to discuss in further detail with the Local Planning Authority. Where there is sufficient confidence that a development will go ahead, we will look to complete any necessary improvements to provide additional capacity. We have provided responses to the Issues and Options questions that are most appropriate for us to comment on below.

Q-S2: Please select all options which are appropriate for South Warwickshire Option S2a: Identify areas considered particularly suited to intensification development, and develop a design code for each character area. Have a policy supporting intensification within these identified areas where it complies with the relevant design code. This is supported because it allows more detailed planning and assessment to be undertaken on sites where intensification is likely, which will provide a mechanism to assess the impact on infrastructure and put in place any relevant policies. Q-S5.2: Do you think new settlements should be part of the overall strategy? Yes - this is in recognition that the housing target may not be achievable through developing existing settlements only. Q-S3: 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. We are supportive of prioritising brownfield land redevelopment as this can often provide an opportunity for surface water betterment of a site which could ultimately reduce flood risk or release capacity for new development in the network. However, we recognise that development should also be located in places that are sustainable for other reasons.

For your information we have set out some general guidelines and relevant policy wording that may be useful to you in the development of your plan. Wastewater Strategy We have a duty to provide capacity for new development in the sewerage network and at our Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) and to ensure that we protect the environment. On a company level we are producing a Drainage and Wastewater Management Plan covering the next 25 years, which assesses the future pressures on our catchments including the impacts of climate change, new development growth and impermeable area creep. This plan will support future investment in our wastewater infrastructure and encourages collaborative working with other Risk Management Authorities to best manage current and future risks. Where site allocations are available, we can provide a high-level assessment of the impact on the existing network. Where issues are identified, we will look to undertake hydraulic sewer modelling to better understand the risk and where there is sufficient confidence that a development will be built, we will look to undertake an improvement scheme to provide capacity. Surface Water Management of surface water is an important feature of new development as the increased coverage of impermeable area on a site can increase the rainwater flowing off the site. The introduction of these flows to the public sewerage system can increase the risk of flooding for existing residents. It is therefore vital that surface water flows are managed sustainably, avoiding connections into the foul or combined sewerage system and where possible directed back into the natural water systems. We recommend that the following policy wording is included in your plan to ensure that surface water discharges are connected in accordance with the drainage hierarchy: Drainage Hierarchy Policy New developments shall demonstrate that all surface water discharges have been carried out in accordance with the principles laid out within the drainage hierarchy, whereby a discharge to the public sewerage system is avoided where possible. Supporting Text: Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph 80 (Reference ID: 7-080-20150323) states: “Generally the aim should be to discharge surface water run off as high up the following hierarchy of drainage options as reasonably practicable: 1. into the ground (infiltration); 2. to a surface water body; 3. to a surface water sewer, highway drain, or another drainage system; 4. to a combined sewer.” Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) represent the most effective way of managing surface water flows whilst being adaptable to the impact of climate change and providing wider benefits around water quality, biodiversity, and amenity. We therefore recommend that the following policy wording is included within your plan regarding SuDS: Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) Policy All major developments shall ensure that Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) for the management of surface water run-off are included, unless proved to be inappropriate. All schemes with the inclusion of SuDS should demonstrate they have considered all four areas of good SuDS design: quantity, quality, amenity and biodiversity. Completed SuDS schemes should be accompanied by a maintenance schedule detailing maintenance boundaries, responsible parties and arrangements to ensure the SuDS are managed in perpetuity. Supporting Text: Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) should be designed in accordance with current industry best practice, The SuDS Manual, CIRIA (C753), to ensure that the systems deliver both the surface water quantity and the wider benefits, without significantly increasing costs. Good SuDS design can be key for creating a strong sense of place and pride in the community for where they live, work and visit, making the surface water management features as much a part of the development as the buildings and roads. Blue Green Infrastructure We are supportive of the principles of blue green infrastructure and plans that aim to improve biodiversity across our area. Looking after water means looking after nature and the environment too. As a water company we have launched a Great Big Nature Boost Campaign which aims to revive 12,000 acres of land, plant 1.3 million trees and restore 2,000km of rivers across our region by 2027. We also have ambitious plans to revive peat bogs and moorland, to plant wildflower meadows working with the RSPB, National Trust, Moors for the Future Partnership, the Rivers Trust, National Forest and regional Wildlife Trusts and conservation groups. We want to encourage new development to continue this theme, enhancing biodiversity and ecology links through new development so there is appropriate space for water. To enable planning policy to support the principles of blue green Infrastructure, biodiversity and protecting local green open spaces we recommend the inclusion of the following policies: Blue and Green Infrastructure Policy Development should where possible create and enhance blue green corridors to protect watercourses and their associated habitats from harm. Supporting Text: The incorporation of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) into blue green corridors can help to improve biodiversity, assisting with the wider benefits of utilising SuDS. National Planning Policy Framework (2018) paragraph 170 States: “Planning policies and Decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: a) protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils (in a manner commensurate with their Statutory Status or identified quality in the development plan); b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland; c) maintaining the character of the undeveloped coast, while improving public access to it where appropriate; d) minimising impacts on and providing net gains for biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;” Green Open Spaces Policy Development of flood resilience schemes within local green spaces will be supported provided the schemes do not adversely impact the primary function of the green space. Supporting Text: We understand the need for protecting Green Spaces, however open spaces can provide suitable locations for schemes such as flood alleviation schemes to be delivered without adversely impacting on the primary function of the open space. If the correct scheme is chosen, the flood alleviation schemes can result in additional benefits to the local green space through biodiversity and amenity benefits. Water Quality and Resources Good quality watercourses and groundwater is vital for the provision of good quality drinking water. We work closely with the Environment Agency and local farmers to ensure that the water quality of our supplies are not impacted by our operations or those of others. Any new developments need to ensure that the Environment Agency’s Source Protection Zones (SPZ) and Safeguarding Zone policies which have been adopted by Natural Resources Wales are adhered to. Any proposals should take into account the principles of the Water Framework Directive and River Basin Management Plan as prepared by the Environment Agency. Every five years we produce a Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP) which focuses on how we plan to ensure there is sufficient supply of water to meet the needs of our customers whilst protecting our environment over the next 25 years. We use housing target data from Local Planning Authorities to plan according to the projected growth rates. New development results in the need for an increase in the amount of water that needs to be supplied across our region. We are committed to doing the right thing and finding new sustainable sources of water, along with removing unsustainable abstractions, reducing leakage from the network and encouraging the uptake of water meters to promote a change in water usage to reduce demand. New developments have a role to play in protecting water resources, we encourage you to include the following policies: Protection of Water Resources Policy New developments must demonstrate that they will not result in adverse impacts on the quality of waterbodies, groundwater and surface water, will not prevent waterbodies and groundwater from achieving a good status in the future and contribute positively to the environment and ecology. Where development has the potential to directly or indirectly pollute groundwater, a groundwater risk assessment will be needed to support a planning application. Supporting Text: National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) Paragraph 163 states: “Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment… e) preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability. Development should wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as river basin management plans;” Water Efficiency Policy We are supportive of the use of water efficient design of new developments fittings and appliances and encourage the optional higher water efficiency target of 110 litres per person per day within part G of building regulations. Delivering against the optional higher target or better provides wider benefits to the water cycle and environment as a whole. This approach is not only the most sustainable but the most appropriate direction to deliver water efficiency. We would therefore recommend that the following wording is included for the optional higher water efficiency standard: New developments should demonstrate that they are water efficient, incorporating water efficiency and re-use measures and that the estimated consumption of wholesome water per dwelling is calculated in accordance with the methodology in the water efficiency calculator, not exceeding 110 litres/person/day. Supporting Text: National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) Paragraph 149 states: “Plans should take a proactive approach to mitigating and adapting to climate change, taking into account the long-term implications for flood risk, costal change, water supply, biodiversity and landscapes, and the risk of overheating from rising temperatures. Policies should support appropriate measures to ensure the future resilience of communities and infrastructure to climate change impacts, such as providing space for physical protection measures, or making provision for the possible future relocation of vulnerable development and infrastructure.” This need for lower water consumption standards for new developments is supported by Government. In December 2018, the Government stated the need to a reduction in Per Capita Consumption (PCC) and issued a call for evidence on future PCC targets in January 2019, with an intention of setting a long term national target. The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) has already presented a report including recommendations for an average PCC of 118 l/p/d. In Wales, the 110 l/p/d design standard was made mandatory in November 2018. In 2021 the Environment Agency classed the Severn Trent region as Seriously Water Stressed – link. We recommend that all new developments consider: • Single flush siphon toilet cistern and those with a flush volume of 4 litres. • Showers designed to operate efficiently and with a maximum flow rate of 8 litres per minute. • Hand wash basin taps with low flow rates of 4 litres per minute or less. • Water butts for external use in properties with gardens. Water Supply For the majority of new developments, we do not anticipate issues connecting new development, particularly within urban areas of our water supply network. When specific detail of planned development location and sizes are available a site-specific assessment of the capacity of our water supply network could be made. Any assessment will involve carrying out a network analysis exercise to investigate any potential impacts. If significant development in rural areas is planned, this is more likely to have an impact and require network reinforcements to accommodate greater demands. Developer Enquiries When there is more detail available on site-specific developments, we encourage developers to get in contact with Severn Trent at an early stage in planning to ensure that there is sufficient time for a development site to be assessed and if network reinforcements are required that there is time to develop an appropriate scheme to address the issues. We therefore encourage developers to contact us, details of how to submit a Developer Enquiry can be found here - https://www.stwater.co.uk/building-and-developing/new-site-developments/developer-enquiries/

I would urge you think carefully about the consequences of any kind of development of the fields north of Leamington Spa at Old Milverton and Blackdown. While I understand the need for more housing, the large areas of development to the south of Leamington must be going a considerable way to fulfilling the district’s requirements. With the rapid disappearance of retail in the town centre it is becoming clear that the area already lacks the infrastructure to support any more residential building on its outskirts. It is a nice town but its attractive nature will soon be a thing of the past as it becomes clogged with cars and coffee shops. The Wimpey plans do not appear to provide for adequate infrastructure so that will result in yet more traffic in central Leamington as the residents are forced to look for services. The particular concern about a large development on the north side of Leamington must relate to the loss of yet more Green Belt. Whatever the quality of the farmland there, those green, undeveloped areas play a crucial role in the quality of life of everyone living in the town. The irreversible damage to habitats, water systems and the general environment is awful to contemplate. Humans also become stressed when they have no access, or even view of, green countryside. I want to encourage you to make the right decision for the long-term benefit of the entire community, and decide against allowing development on the fields at Old Milverton and Blackdown.

Introduction 1.1 Turley is instructed by Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land (Taylor Wimpey) to represent its interests in relation to the South Warwickshire Local Plan (SWLP) and to formally respond to the consultation on the Issues & Options dated January 2023. 1.2 Taylor Wimpey is promoting approximately 14 hectares of land north and east of Hampton Magna, which represents a new sustainable and deliverable residential neighbourhood. 1.3 The site was submitted via the Call for Sites exercise in June 2021 and identified by the following site reference 573. Additionally, Taylor Wimpey submitted representations to the Scoping Paper in June 2021. 1.4 These representations should be read in conjunction with the following suite of sitespecific evidence, which is supported in support of these representations: • Appendix 1 – Vision Document • Appendix 2 – Heritage Assessment 1.5 Section 2 of this statement provides a summary of the site and the opportunity that the neighbourhood presents for South Warwickshire. Section 3 sets out Taylor Wimpey’s representations in response to each relevant issue and option, including: • Issue S4: Growth of existing settlements • Issue S7: Refined Spatial Growth Options • Issue S9: Settlement Boundaries and Infill Development • Issue H1: Providing the right number of new homes • Issue H2: Providing the right tenure and type of homes • Issue H3: Providing the right size of homes • Issue H4: Accommodating housing needs arising from outside of South Warwickshire • Issue C3: Carbon sequestration • Issue C9: Mitigating biodiversity loss • Issue D3: Designing adaptable, diverse and flexible places • Issue D5: Protecting and enhancing heritage assets • Issue W4: Public open space for leisure and informal recreation • Issue T1: 20-minute neighbourhoods 1.6 Section 4 of this statement summarises and concludes the representations. 2. The site and the opportunity 2.1 This section describes the opportunity of the site in terms of its geography and its prospects for delivering a new neighbourhood at Hampton Magna. Description of the site 2.2 The site is located south of Warwick Parkway and lies to the north and east of Hampton Magna within the Green Belt. 2.3 It extends to approximately 14 hectares and is made up of 3 agricultural fields, varying in size and shape. Each of the field parcels are divided by well-established hedgerows and individual mature trees. 2.4 The northern boundary is predominately defined by mature hedgerows running alongside a farm track. A farmstead with a cluster of buildings sits centrally on the northern boundary. Immediately north is Warwick Parkway which provides services to London and Birmingham. 2.5 A small field and the dense mature tree belt associated with the A46/Warwick Bypass delineate the eastern boundary. The southern boundary is again defined by mature hedgerow, beyond which are further agricultural fields. 2.6 The western boundary is defined by the village of Hampton Magna. Old Budbrooke Road outlines the most northern part of the western boundary and the rear gardens of residential properties on Blandford Way, Arras Boulevard, Gould Road and Clinton Avenue define the central part of the western boundary. 2.7 Land to the south-west is currently under construction for new homes – homes allocated under sites H27 and H51 in the Warwick Local Plan (September 2017) and subsequently subject to approval of planning permissions W/19/0691 and W/19/2112 for a combined total of 267 new homes. 2.8 Historically, the existing settlement of Hampton Magna was formally used as the army barracks of the Royal Warwickshire Regiment from 1877 which remained in use until the mid-1960’s. In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, the barracks were re-developed as part of the post-war housing boom. The opportunity 2.9 The site has the capacity to deliver between circa 300 and 350 new homes based on a density of between 35 and 40 dwellings per hectare on an 8.6 hectare developable area. The neighbourhood will comprise a mix of different house types, tenures and sizes. 2.10 The non-developable area will comprise access routes, a hierarchy of streets to facilitate safe pedestrian and cycling movement and be knitted together by 5 hectares of public open space and 1,200m² of play space. 2.11 In planning terms, the site is deliverable for new homes subject to its removal from the Green Belt. This is on the basis of the explanation below: Available 2.12 The site is available for residential development based on the following: • There are no legal or ownership impediments to development. • The land is in single ownership. • The land is subject to an option with an intent to develop. • Taylor Wimpey has an excellent delivery record in South Warwickshire. • The site is not subject to a history of unimplemented permissions. Suitability 2.13 The site is suitable for residential development because of the following factors: • It is not subject to any technical constraints which cannot be avoided or mitigated. • There are no international and/or national environmental designations. • Its neighbouring use is also residential. • The market attractiveness of the geography is high. Achievability 2.14 The site is achievable for residential development because: • New homes can start to be delivered within five years following permission. • It is currently economically viable subject to planning obligations. • Taylor Wimpey has the capacity to complete and sell new homes early in the plan period. 2.15 The full constraints and opportunities are described in the accompanying Vision Document (Appendix 1) and an illustrated development framework is provided to visually express how the new neighbourhood will be a place for living and playing. Question S7.2: 8 The appropriate strategy for South Warwickshire is a mix of the identified growth options i.e. a blended approach. Hampton Magna options in the SA 3.19 This blended approach should include growth at Hampton Magna (with Warwick Parkway) as it performs well in all growth options. 3.20 In particular, Hampton Magna is assessed favourably in rail-led and sustainable travelled options, which have the fewest assessed minor adverse impacts against the SA objectives. 3.21 The spatial pattern of growth around key public transport nodes results in a major positive impact on the SA11 ‘Accessibility’ objective. These options are also the best performing growth options in respect of SA6 ‘Environmental Pollution’ and SA7‘Natural Resources’ objectives. 3.22 The SA concludes that sustainable travel-led development is likely to align most closely with development that will most effectively mitigate against climate change. The opportunity of Warwick Parkway 3.23 The delivery of new housing growth at Hampton Magna is not reliant on a new or reopened railway station. It benefits from its close proximity to Warwick Parkway as an existing means of sustainable transport, particularly to jobs. 3.24 Warwick Parkway provides services to Birmingham Moor Street and Birmingham Snow Hill approximately every 30 minutes. Journeys to these stations take 20 minutes and 30-40 minutes respectively. Services to London Marylebone, via Warwick and Leamington Spa, are also offered approximately every 30 minutes. Meanwhile,journeys to Warwick and Leamington Spa are 3 minutes and 7 minutes respectively. The station provides regular services to regional centres providing access to appropriate services and facilities. 3.25 Between April 2021 and March 2022, there were an estimated 270,714 passengers travelling either to or from the Warwick Parkway station1 . This figure increased fivefold from the previous year – numbers in Warwick and Leamington Spa approximately tripled in this time. 3.26 Although the Covid-19 pandemic will have influenced the scale of growth in number of passengers travelling to or from stations, as well as the absolute number of passengers, it is evident that proportionally Warwick Parkway has seen the biggest growth in passengers over the last 12 months.In summary, Hampton Magna is an existing settlement with strong rail and bus infrastructure that provides or enables connections at local, regional, national and international scales. There is capacity for greater use of the station, which makes the settlement an appropriate location for strategic housing development as part of the SWLP. Question S9: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire • Option S9a: Save all existing settlement boundaries where these are already defined within the Core Strategy, Local Plan, emerging SAP or an NDP. • Option S9b: Within this Part 1 Plan, review which settlements have boundaries defined and which do not, as well as the extent of any such boundaries. 3.28 Option S9b is the most appropriate option for South Warwickshire as there will undoubtably be a need to review and alter some existing settlement boundaries to accommodate the housing requirement up to 2050 on land adjoining existing sustainable settlements, including Hampton Magna. 3.29 Option S9b is consistent with paragraph 73 of the NPPF in that it will allow for the supply of large numbers of new homes to be delivered by significant extensions to existing villages and towns “provided these are well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities”. 3.30 Option S9a will preclude the SWLP from being positively prepared and consistent with national policy as existing settlement boundaries were formed on out-of-date evidence on development need and sustainable patterns of growth. This is inconsistent with paragraph 31 of the NPPF. Summary and Conclusion 4.1 This section summarises and concludes the representations made by Taylor Wimpey in relation to land north and east of Hampton Magna and the issues which need to be addressed to deliver sustainable development in South Warwickshire. Summary of representations 4.2 To deliver sustainable development, the SWLP should pursue the following options: (i) Allocate new homes on land around existing settlements such as Hampton Magna. (ii) The spatial distribution of new homes should be guided by a blend of the five growth options. (iii) Existing settlement boundaries should be reviewed and altered to allocate new homes, including at Hampton Magna. (iv) Utilise a trend-based approach using the 2021 census data for calculating local housing need. (v) Accommodate an appropriate proportion of the emerging GBBCHMA and CWHMA housing shortfalls. (vi) Increase the housing requirement to ensure that sufficient affordable homes will be delivered. (vii) Select strategic sites which can provide climate change adaptation and climate change mitigation. (viii) Afford flexibility on biodiversity net gain so it can be achieved on-site, offsite or through a combination of on-site and off-site measures. (ix) Identify appropriate density ranges for different locations/areas based upon accessibility and potential accessibility of these places. (x) Continue with the approach to include a high-level strategic policy on protecting and enhancing heritage assets (xi) Include reference to the principles of a 20-minute neighbourhood within a broader overarching policy. Next steps 4.3 Taylor Wimpey trusts these representations and the supporting Vision Document will be analysed to inform the SWLP Preferred Options. 4.4 Taylor Wimpey welcomes a meeting with WDC and SOADC to discuss the refinement of the growth options and the spatial distribution of housing growth to Hampton Magna.

The plan should include a strategy for integrating the South Warwickshire Local Plan into the development of the wider West Midlands region. This is because the duration of the Local Plan is significantly long and within this period currently unforeseeable factors may influence the movement of employment and people across the region.

Section S6 does not allow for comments, which would appear to be inappropriate given the importance of he issue to the local area and as such comments are included here. The accessibility of green belt land close to large towns, commented on here in relation to Leamington Spa, due to my familiarity with the town, but as equally relevant to Warwick and Stratford-upon-avon is critical to the health and wellbeing (both physical and mental) of those who live there. In particular development to the North of Leamington concerns me significant due to the lack of other open, green and accessible areas in the locality, given all the urban parks and open spaces in the town (Jephson Gardens, Victoria Park, Newbold Comyn and the planned Queen Elizabeth Park) are all within the centre and South of the town. This places them outside of walking distance and significantly outside your '20 minute neighbourhood principle' threshold for accessibility of areas to meet regular day to day needs within reasonable walking distance. The green belt to the north of the town is intersected by a number of public footpath which are heavily used by a large proportion of local residents. This specific area is also fundamental in meeting the purpose of the green belt as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework which aims to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas and prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another, which is becoming a real risk as the proximity of Kenilworth and Leamington is impacted by current significant development to the south of Kenilworth. I am not adverse to green belt development once other options, ideally Brownfield sites which assist in urban regeneration have been thoroughly explored and exhausted, but would ask that the impact on current town residents ability to access open spaces is also considered, or to focus these developments on areas of green belt where there is already no public access and therefore impact would be minimised. On that basis, your proposal to identify suitable large and unconnected areas from the green belt to facilitate a large scale development to meet significant housing needs and the building of a new settlement, ideally with public transport infrastructure would appear a much more attractive solution to both current and potential new residents.

I would like to voice my concerns over the plans to review the green belt boundaries in North Warwickshire, in particular to the land near Old Milverton. This land is used daily by the people of Leamington to exercise, my own children enjoying walking, running and cycling here and have done since they were tiny. The land is an important distinction between Leamington and the town of Kenilworth, without this the two towns will merge together and loose their individual and attractive identities. It also isn't necessary to build on this green belt land for the following reasons: • it's high quality agricultural land which should be protected for future food security • the planning team have not presented any options aside from building on green belt land, though they have explored these options • the statistics used in the consultation document to support development are misleading - it says the 54% of respondents support the exploration of the green belt without mentioning that 45% of these respondents were developers, landowners and businesses.

Our records indicate that within the Stratford-on-Avon and Warwick District Council areas (South Warwickshire) there are no recorded coal mining features present at surface or shallow depth which may pose a risk to surface stability. On this basis I can confirm that the Planning team at the Coal Authority has no specific comments to make on this consultation.

I wish to comment on the need to secure/defend the green belt North of Leamington Spa for future generations. 1. It maintains the distinct identities of Leamington Spa and Kenilworth, and assists in maintaining Leamington Spa's setting and special character (vital in attracting people to the area to promote tourism and retail facilities necessary for income and employment) 2. This area is much loved by residents of Leamington Spa and visitors, and is much used for recreation and enjoyment of nature 3. The agricultural land is of high quality, important for the sake of national food security. 4. It is frequently referred to as "The lungs of Leamington" Its development would not be in line with Government policy and would be a tragic waste, resounding down the generations of locals and visitors alike. We seem to be constantly needing to repeat defence of this for the future. Why? Our area has suffered greatly due to HS2. Further decimation/destruction/blighting would be devastating.

I have lived in Weston-under-Wetherley for over 55 years and am horrified at the possibility of a massive mixed development in our village over Green Belt land. Our population doubled in 2000 when 70 new houses were built on the site of the old Hospital. This estate is now known as Wetherley Rise. The B4453 Rugby Road into Weston from Cubbington is very narrow with sharp bends with St Michael's Church on the left and private houses fronting the pavement on both sides of the road. There have often been accidents on the left hand bend including one a few years ago when The Old Forge was badly damaged. A Parish Plan was completed in 2013 when everyone in the Parish was consulted on their views for the future of the Village. When asked the question "Do you agree/disagree with further development" the answer was an emphatic "No". Warwick District Council confirmed to us at that time that there were no plans for further development. I strongly believe that the Green Belt should be sacrosanct. We already suffer disruption and noise from HS2 and also speeding traffic despite slow down signs There is no obvious access to this proposed development. This is a rural village with no Shop, Pub or School and a very limited Bus Service. The southern end of the proposed site falls within the Flood Plane of the River Leam and is totally unsuitable for any development. The very small road between Weston-under-Wetherley and Hunningham narrows to a single-lane, Grade 2 listed stone bridge over the River Leam. There are two Smallholdings on the proposed site which have always been let to local farmers and I believe that these small farms should be preserved with priority given to locals and not destroyed by any sort of housing development. I am sending this letter by post as I found it impossible to cope with your extremely complex web site.

The amount of houses planned for Bearley and other areas is beyond the capacity of any community to absorb. The population are continuously told we need more houses, without stating any data in respect of births and deaths, and hypnotising our representatives into believing it. Villages are communities which are having change forced upon them. The infrastructure for the whole of south Warwickshire is already insufficient to cope. In respect of farmland being sold for millions to developers in order to appease politicians and councils and their agenda is not longer acceptable. This policy is nationwide, villages all over the UK are up in arms. Farmland is/should be used to provide the nation with food We see shortages in our supermarkets because we import more and more. It is not for politicians and councils to take this power away from the people, when their job is to represent the people. Our wild life suffers, our concerns are ignored. Stratford-upon Avon was a very pleasant market town, surrounded by green countryside and wonderful village communities, now it is a nightmare of traffic lights and housing estates and closed shops. Bearley is small, and has been fighting to keep our green farmland for many years, the council is now proposing a housing programme which exceeds the existing village, destroying any quality of life, both for current residents and wildlife. We should not have to be constantly at war with the council or Westminster.

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.

The South Warwickshire Local Plan Revisions indicate that a field in the centre of Ashow village has been put forward for the development of ten or more new houses and we wish to comment on this proposal. The access to the field is from Grove Lane which is a single track road without footpaths set into the landscape with banks and hedges on both sides. The access is very restricted and unsuitable for a development of this size. The necessary widening of the lane and provision of footpaths to service the site would result in the destruction of an attractive country lane and the degrading of an important part of Ashow’s rural character. The existing Local Plan defines Ashow as a village not scheduled for expansion and there has been no change in circumstances that would necessitate housing expansion into this ancient village in the green belt. The massive scale of housing development immediately north of the A46 on the southern edge of Kenilworth will accommodate the housing requirement for that town. While 10 new houses are insignificant in District terms; in a village of 42 houses it would represent a major intrusion and a significant change to the village character. The suggested site is on high land overlooking the core of the village and is one of the least suitable housing sites that could be chosen in Ashow. A practical deficit is that the site lacks access to any main drainage. The proposed WDC plan also indicates land at the Chesford Crossroads north of the B4115 Ashow Road is being put forward for an industrial site; this piece of ribbon development next to the Leamington road would be unsightly and create traffic problems on an important and very busy road linking the A46 to Leamington Spa. We therefore request that these sites are not accepted for inclusion on the Local Plan revision 2023.

INTRODUCTION 1.1 Barton Willmore, now Stantec is instructed by Caddick Land, part of Caddick Group, to prepare a representation to the South Warwickshire Issues and Options (Regulation 18) Consultation (‘the Local Plan’), including relevant documents within the evidence ba se. 1.2 This representation follows the structure of the Local Plan and seeks to respond to the questions posed within the Document, where relevant. 1.3 Caddick Land have a development agreement on the identified site off Warwick Road, Leek Wootton, adjacent to the south-eastern boundary of the village. The Site comprises two parcels of land (A and B) which are separated by Hill Wootton Road. 1.4 The Site is being promoted for residential-led development for up to 200 dwellings 1 , including plots to be available to self-builders, a proposed community use/mobility hub, land to facilitate the expansion of All Saints Primary school public open space and landscaping. This will include the provision of 10% biodiversity net gain. 1.5 Caddick Land are a team with over 30 years experience in development and construction, helping landowners to realise the full potential of land through development for housing, renewable energy and commercial or mixed use schemes. 1.6 Caddick Land’s mission is to deliver high quality, desirable and sustainable developments, that provide long term benefits and a positive legacy. 1.7 Accompanying this response to the Issues and Options Consultation, is the following material: - Vision Document (Appendix 1) - Green Belt Assessment (Appendix 2) - Highways Note (Appendix 3) - Sustainability Appraisal Compliance Review (Appendix 4) 1.8 Caddick Land welcomes the opportunity to provide a response to the Local Plan consultation and looks forward to engaging with the Council further in respect of residential matters within South Warwickshire. 11.0 LAND OFF WARWICK ROAD, LEEK WOOTTON Site Description and Context Site Description 11.1 The Site is situated adjacent to south-eastern boundary of Leek Wootton, which is identified as an ‘Large Village’ within the South Warwickshire Local Plan: Urban Capacity Study (2022). The Site comprises two parcels of land (A and B) which are separated b y Hill Wootton Road. 11.2 The northern parcel of land is located between the eastern edge of the village, between ‘The Hamlet’ (road name) and the A46, and comprises agricultural land which is bounded by a wooden palisade fencing, residential properties and existing vegetation. The total area of the northern parcel equates to 1.84ha. 11.3 The larger portion of land to the south of Hill Wootton Road is currently used for agricultural purposes and has a total area of 18.21ha. The Site is mostly bounded by trees and hedgerows, either adjacent to the A46 Warwick Bypass or to the rear of existing properties located on Warwick Road. Internally, the land is sub-divided by intermittent hedgerows which have been breached to provide access into adjacent field parce ls. Context 11.4 There are semi-detached and detached residential properties to the west of the Site, located on Warwick Road. Warwick Road is the main road which runs through the village. The road is bounded by hedgerow planting and mature tree planting partic ularly to the south where Warwick Road connects with the junction onto the A46. This planting provides some physical and visual separation from the road corridor although there are views into the internal fields of the site as the road is slightly elevated. 11.5 The closest bus stop is located on Warwick Road, immediately adjacent to the proposed site access. The X16 bus provides a service from this bus stop which runs from Kenilworth and Warwick to Stratford and vice versa. 11.6 Leek Wootton also has accessibility to the IndieGo PLUS service, where users have the ability to book a bus journey between 6am-7:30pm. This service has been considered by Warwickshire County Council to be an improved service compared to the superseded Number 16 service, due to its efficiency and bespoke nature. The Site is also within a reasonable travel distance to both Kenilworth Railway Station (to the north) which is approximately 3.7km away from the Site whereas Warwick Railway Station (to the south) is approximately 3.6km away. To the south of the site there is a roundabout junction with the A46 which connects the village and Warwick Road to the wider road network. This junction is well landscaped, and the tree and shrub planting in this location has matured to provide the site with a high degree of enclosure from the south. 11.10 Leek Wootton is served well by a comprehensive highway network which provides access to the wider areas such as Warwick and Leamington Spa via the A46 (south) and Coventry Road and Kenilworth via Warwick Road. 11.11 The western side of the carriageway on Warwick Road is served with an advisory cycle lane which starts at the Warwick Road/Warwick Bypass/ B4115/ Coventry Road gyratory and ends on approach to Leek Wootton. A section of the cycle lane crosses on to the shared use facility to the southern end of Warwick Road which forms part of the NCN Route 52. 11.12 We are aware that there are two active planning applications on land at the Former Woodcote Police HQ (W/22/0465 and W/22/1877) for 83 dwellings. The Police HQ was released from the Green Belt and allocated for 115 dwellings under the current Local Plan (Policy DS22). Constraints and Opportunities 11.13 The adopted Local Plan Proposals Map confirms that the Site is located within the Green Belt, although the site is heavily influenced by its surrounding context, including residential and road infrastructure. 11.14 The Site is entirely located within Flood Zone 1 (low probability) of flooding; land which is assessed as having a less than 1 in 1,000 annual probability of flooding from rivers and seas. 11.15 The Site does not form part of a conservation area, with Leek Wootton Conservation Area being located 225m to the west. However, this is screened from the Site by the existing properties situated both along Hill Wootton Road and Warwick Road. The Site is therefore not considered to fall within the setting of the Conservation Area. There are also a nu mber of Listed Buildings located within Leek Wootton, however, again, these are not located within the immediate vicinity of the Site, as set out below: • The Cottage - Grade II (approximately 320m away from the Site); • 84, Warwick Road - Grade II (approximately 345m away from the Site); • Church of all Saints (Grade II (approximately 445m away from the Site); • Wootton Paddox - Grade II (approximately 520m away from the Site); • Reading Room Cottage - Grade II (approximately 455m away from the Site); • The Rock - Grade II (approximately 475m away from the Site); • Holly Cottage - Grade II (approximately 585m away from the Site); • The Old Post House - Grade II (approximately 510m away from the Site). 11.16 There are opportunities to provide routes through the proposed development Site which would essentially enhance both the existing pedestrian and cycle access through and around the Site. Planning Policy Designations 11.17 The Warwick District Local Plan 2011-2029 was adopted in September 2017. As mentioned previously, the Site is located within the designated Green Belt which is subject to Policy DS18. The Policy confirms that “The Council will apply national planning policy to proposals within the green belt” . 11.19 The Site currently falls outside of the village boundary. 11.20 There is an area of land towards the northwest boundary (Allocation H37 9 ) which is identified as a Housing Allocation for 5 dwellings (Local Plan Policy DS11) and an allocation for 115 houses at the Former Police HQ, north-east of the site (Allocation DS22). There are currently two live planning applications for the former Police HQ site, both on exactly the same site area for 83 dwellings. Leek Wootton is therefore unlikely to be subject to the level of growth previously envisaged. Net Zero Carbon Development Plan Document 11.21 The Net Zero Carbon DPD forms part of the Council’s ambitious Climate Emergency Action Plan which aims to ensure that new buildings do not continue to impact on climate change. The DPD addresses climate change and sustainable construction in detail than the existing policies and if adopted will impose standards on developments to meet this council’s target of net zero carbon or as close as possible by 2030. This document was submitted to the Planning Inspector in October 2022; the examination hearings are expected to commence March 2023. Leek Wootton and Guy Cliffe’s Neighbourhood Development Plan 11.22 The Leek Wootton and Guy Cliffe’s NDP was adopted in May 2018 and forms part of the Development Plan for Warwick District. The NDP enables local communities the power to develop a shared vision for their neighbourhood and shape the development and growth of their local area. The planning policy framework supports the changing role for existing facilities such as the Village Hall and Sports Club, for instance by providing space and opportunities for a community led shop / café / internet facility. 11.23 Since the 1970s/80s there has been little physical change, but because of Leek Wootton’s central location between Birmingham, Coventry, Warwick, Leamington Spa and Kenilworth properties have become much sought after and it has become very much a ‘commuter village’ which has led to the loss of village shopping facilities. The Parish Plan consultation demonstrated local support for a village shop, but the economic viability of such a proposal, having regard to the proximity of other facilities, is problematic. However, a community run ‘shop’, providing a range of local services such as broadband, a café etc . may be an alternative option, if supported by the Parish Council and other volunteers 11.24 Policy LW10 ‘Supporting a Local Community ’Hub’ Facility in Leek Wootton’ aims to improve local facilities by redeveloping the sports club building, investing in playing pitches, providing provision for allotments and recreational spaces and other communit y uses such as a village shop/ café. 11.25 It is evident that there is now a clear demand for community facilities in Leek Wootton. The Site and its extant is large enough to accommodate a number of dwellings and support future local facilities. Landscape and Visual Impact 11.26 A Landscape and Visual Technical Note was produced in November 2022 by Aspect Planning Limited which provides landscape and visual input in relation to the potential of a residential development on the Site. This Note is included at Appendix 1 to this Representation. 11.27 The Note identifies that the Site is visually contained from the surrounding landscape by the highway infrastructure to the east (A46) and the elevated ground to the west. The surrounding landscape also contains robust vegetation structure of mature tree planting and hedgerows associated with field boundaries, historic listed gardens, residential gardens, and highways embankments. 11.28 In visual terms, the Technical Note identifies that there is good potential to enhance the existing landscape structure to reinforce an already high degree of visual containment and that the Site has capacity to accommodate a well-considered and site responsive residential development in visual terms. 11.29 Lastly, the Note includes a Site-specific assessment of the Site’s contribution to the five Green Belt purposes, as defined within the NPPF, and the potential implications upon the Green Belt as a result of developing the Site. Purpose A) To check unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas • The A46 dual carriageway is considered to form a prominent and defensible boundary within the Site’s localised landscape setting to the east. • Development within the site would be well contained by this feature, which would act as a permanent and enduring form of constraint to any future potential development extending further to the east and south. • MINOR CONTRIBUTION. Purpose B) To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one and other • The Site does not form part of any strategic gap between settlements and development within it would not result in the merger of any neighbouring towns or built-up areas. • NO CONTRIBUTION. Purpose C) To assist safeguarding the countryside from encroachment • The Site is well contained by the permitter highway routes and robust treelines a nd hedgerow planting, which establish a compartmentalised character, ensuring that future development within it, would not be perceived extending out into the wider countryside. • MODERATE CONTRIBUTION. Purpose D) To preserve the setting and special characte r of historic towns • Leek Wootton is not a historic town. Whilst there is no definitive position on this point, this purpose is generally accepted as relating to very few settlements in practice. In most towns there already are more recent developments between the historic core, and the countryside between the edge of the town. Generally, only relates to sites where the development will alter the character of an established historic core, or impact on views to / from it. It is not to be confused with simply developing on the edge of a settlement • NO CONTRIBUTION. Purpose E) To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land • All land within the Green Belt is considered to contribute equally to this purpose. Overall, the Landscape and Visual Technical Note considers that the Site only makes a minor contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt (as defined within the NPPF para graph 138) and in landscape and visual terms development within the Site would not undermine the integrity of the wider Green Belt designation. Highways and Access 11.31 The Southern land parcel is currently accessed from Hill Wootton Road at its northern boundary and Warwick Road at its western boundary. The northern parcel is also accessed from Hill Wootton Road at its southern boundary. All three of these accesses are f or agricultural purposes. The Site is not accessible to the public. 11.32 A Highways Promotional Report has been produced by PJA (January 2023) in order support the promotion of the Site. 11.33 A suitable access point to the southern parcel is proposed off Warwick Road. A second access to the northern parcel is proposed off Hill Wootton Road. The speed limit of both Warwick Road and Hill Wootton Road is 50mph therefore it is suggested that a reduction to 30mph speed limit should be considered, though this is not required to deliver a safe access to the site. 11.34 Section 5 of the Promotional Report sets out predicted trip generation based on a quantum of 250 dwellings, although the Indicative Concept Plan described below only includes approximately 200 dwellings. This ‘worst case’ approach seeks to ensure that vehicle movements can categorically be accommodated within the local highway network. Table 5 - 2 shows the highest trip rates enter/exit the Site during the hours of 08:00-09:00 (138) whereas Table 5-5 shows the second highest trip rates occur between the hours of 17:00- 18:00 (134). 11.35 Taking into account the existing volume of traffic passing through the Warwick Road/ A46/ B4115/ A429 junction, the projected increase in vehicle flow resulting from the development is considered to be modest, but appropriate consideration would nonetheless be given at planning stage as to the precise impacts on the surrounding highway network through appropriate modelling. This would determine whether any mitigation would be required. 11.36 The Site is well placed to benefit from an existing network of active travel links, public transport services and access to the local and strategic highway networks, as well as existing local facilities. It is accordingly recognised that the Site presents the opportunity for potential improvements to pedestrian/cycle access within the wider area. Planning obligations and contributions which arise as part of any future development on the Site could assist in: Pedestrian and Cycle Connectivity: • Local improvement with Leek Wootton: o Potential improvements to the existing provision along site frontages. o If required, general improvements through Leek Wootton village with the potential to include relevant traffic management to ensure conditions for pedestri ans and cyclists are appropriate along with footway improvements. o Potential enhancements to the crossing facility between the eastern and western sides of Warwick Road at its southern end where it forms a junction with the A46 and links to the existing shared use facility. • Wider improvements: o Subject to viability, contributions towards wider aspirations such as the LCWIP route (i.e. Kenilworth to A46 route). Highway Network - To be determined through modelling: • Wider improvements: o Subject to viability, contributions towards wider schemes identified through the Warwick District Infrastructure Delivery Plan (depending on outcomes of traffic modelling). o Overall, the Promotional Report considers that the Site could be developed for approximately 250 dwellings, notwithstanding the submitted Concept Plan which seeks to promote the Site for approximately 200 dwellings. The outline enhancements considered would also be to the benefit of existing users and contribute towards wider aspirations. Concept Plan 11.38 An initial Concept Plan has been provided as part of the Vision Document which is included at Appendix 1 to this Representation, which demonstrates the potential development of the Site. At this early stage it has sought to build on the opportunities identified on the Constraints and Opportunities Plan. On this basis the concept plan has: A proposed delivery of up to 200 dwellings within 20.05ha of developable land, including plots for self-build homes. • Medium density housing (25 dwellings per hectare) would be located towards the northern portion of the Site whereas low density housing (20 dwellings per hectare) would be located towards the central portion of the Site. • A parcel of land towards the rear of the existing All Saints C of E Academy School is to be retained in order to allow the expansion of the primary school premises. • Land adjacent to the site access off Warwick Road is reserved for the provision of a community use/mobility hub. • Public open space is to be retained to the south of the Site for both recreational purposes and delivering biodiversity net gain (minimum 10%). • Open space is retained along the whole of the eastern boundary and is to include planting to provide screening from the A46. • Site boundary vegetation and wider green infrastructure will be retained and enhanced where possible. Planting will use locally native species like Oak to maximise biodiversity gains and increase the connectivity between existing habitats off site. • An indicative primary access/ route is proposed from Warwick Road in addition to a secondary access off Hill Wootton Road. • Design influences have been drawn from the neighbouring developments along Warwick Road and Hill Wootton Road regarding design, density, general layout and material considerations. 11.39 It is important to Note that the client is prepared to work with both the Local Planning Authority and the local residents to help deliver this development, and shape it in a way that maximises benefit to the local community. Summary 11.40 Whilst the emerging Local Plan is still at Regulation 18 stage, Caddick Land supports the approach to the proposed development strategy and Site options – particularly in relation to the need for Green Belt Review, in order to accommodate housing need. Caddick Land is also fully supportive of reviewing Sites within the Green Belt as part of that process to ensure that the broadest range of possible options to deliver the homes needed for communities across the South Warwickshire Local Plan area are fully considered to ensure that sustainable patterns of development are achieved. Furthermore, Caddick Land support that the Councils have acknowledged and recognised within the Urban Growth Study 10 that Leek Wootton is identified as a main settlement. It has also been demonstrated within this Representation that Leek Wootton is a suitable location for growth within the majority of Growth Options. 11.41 In addition, the Site is in single ownership and can come forward immediately. 11.42 When considering the Green Belt, the Site is considered to make a minor contribution to its five purposes. The Site’s revised south-eastern boundary forms a logical new, defensible Green Belt boundary, comprising an established vegetation feature along its entirety, with the A46 beyond to restrict the potential for future development. The Site is very well contained within the local area, and with careful mitigation, any potential visual impacts can be avoided/ designed out. 11.43 The Site is capable of delivering up to 200 dwellings, including self build plots, along with additional community facilities and extensive open space. The proposed access arrangements are acceptable for a development of this size. The provision for pedestrian and cycle routes would enable the Site to connect with the surrounding area and proposed public open space to the south. 11.44 In line with both Planning Practice Guidance and NPPF, it has been demonstrated that the Site is deliverable due to it being: • Suitable for development - The Site, aside from its Green Belt location, it has no constraints which restrict its development. • Available for development - The Site is within single ownership allowing for its holistic development and avoiding any issues with conflicting landowners. • Achievable for development - Caddick Land considers the Site to be economically viable and can be delivered promptly due to its medium scale – in line with paragraph 69 of the NPPF - which recognises the importance of such Sites making an important contribution to housing supply.

Q-S1 Caddick Land supports the assertion in the Consultation Document that the SWLP will take a proactive approach and seek to identify its own ‘Green Corridors’ across the plan area in advance of the Local Nature Recovery Strategy, in line with Option S1a. The Consultation Document suggests that doing so would allow Strategic Green and Blue corridors to ‘inform the growth strategy’. Whilst this is agreed, determining Strategic Green and Blue corridor s in advance of the Local Nature Recovery Strategy being produced should ensure that the corridors and growth strategy do not conflict with one another. Including these corridors within the Local Plan also ensures that they are appropriately consulted upon against the statutory tests for plan-making. 3.9 Caddick Land reserves the right to comment upon any Strategic Green and Blue corridors identified within future iterations of the Plan. Any such corridors such be based on proportionate evidence which also considers how the corridors will be delivered. Q-S3.2 3 Given the clear deficiency in the supply of brownfield land identified above in response to Question S3.1, Caddick Land firmly believes Option S3.c should be followed. This is not to say that Caddick Land does not support the redevelopment of brownfield land, but the lack of available supply evidenced through the Urban Growth Study is clearly acute, with the Study concluding that ‘… it is unlikely to be possible to meet current development needs without significant greenfield development.’ It would therefore be inappropriate to ‘prioritise’ brownfield land ahead of developing other sustainable greenfield sites. This would result in an artificially constrained supply of housing, particularly at the start of the Plan Period, restricting the ability of both Councils to be able to demonstrate a five -year housing land supply, as required by National Policy. 3.14 Furthermore, it would be inappropriate to carte blanche develop brownfield sites irrespective of their location. This could potentially result in isolated development which is not sustainable and would conflict with other Plan priorities. 3.15 Instead, brownfield and greenfield land should be brought forward together as part of a wider comprehensive growth strategy. Q-S5.2 Caddick Land recognises the benefits of delivering new settlements as part of an overall growth strategy. However, Caddick Land also reiterates the importance of smaller, proportional growth at existing settlements, including both main towns and villages , to allow for coherent and balanced development to occur throughout the Districts. This growth would support the ongoing vitality and viability of existing services and facilities, whilst also allowing for the proportionate expansion of existing neighbour hoods where infrastructure is already in place. A dispersed approach to growth will also allow for the delivery of homes much sooner within the Plan Period, with new settlements delivering in the middle and later stages, up to 2050. Issue S6: A Review of Green Belt Boundaries 3.21 Although there is not a specified question in relation to reviewing the Green Belt boundaries across South Warwickshire, Caddick Land wishes to comment upon this principle. 3.22 Issue S6 outlines the findings of the previous consultation, noting that 54% of respondents supported the exploration of growth opportunities in the Green Belt, compared to only 31% against. Whilst the Consultation Document sets out that the Local Plan pro vides an opportunity to consider whether the existing Green Belt boundaries should be altered to allow for development, there is a lack of evidence at this stage to inform this and therefore comment on (such as a Green Belt review). The Consultation Document accordingly acknowledges that a Green Belt study is required. 3.23 Nonetheless, Aspect has undertaken a site-specific Green Belt review in respect of Land at Warwick Road, Leek Wootton, which concludes that, overall, the Site makes a minor contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt. This is expanded upon in Section 11 of this Representation. 3.24 Any future Green Belt Study should underpin and inform the options proposed as part of this consultation, rather than be led by pre-determined growth options. Based on the evidence that has already been prepared (Urban Growth Study) it is clear that the development requirements with South Warwickshire are such that Green Belt release will be required. 3.25 As a result, Caddick Land strongly supports the requirement for a Green Belt Review, which should be undertaken alongside a review of the submitted Call For Sites to understand and explore potential possibilities available within the Green Belt, to accommodate much needed housing supply and achieve sustainable development, as per the Vision of the Local Plan. Q-S8.1 Q-S8.2 Notwithstanding that Leek Wootton should be apart of the Growth Strategy, Caddick Land does not support a threshold approach as this would serve to restrict windfall growth which may otherwise be sustainable. In this regard, it is submitted that each development should be considered on its own merits, based on the size of the site, the context of the area it sits within and the site’s proposal, such as density, layout,design and potential to support or provide new community facilities. Q-S9 Caddick Land does not support either of these approaches. The purpose of the Part 1 Plan is stated as being to set out the overall strategy for the pattern and scale of growth, which will include allocating sites for development. Some of these sites will be adjacent to existing settlements and it would accordingly be prudent to amend exis ting settlement boundaries to accommodate these allocations (otherwise they would be considered to be ‘open countryside’ in planning terms). 3.34 Any further allocations made through Part 2 Plans would then provide a similar opportunity to make further modifications to settlement boundaries as necessary at that stage. 3.35 Whilst this approach may be different between the two authorities when preparing their Part 2 Plans, it would have a negligible impact. As the supporting narrative to Option S9b suggests, non-strategic land allocations will likely not be made until Part 2 plans come forward. In such cases, it becomes difficult to make appropriate revisions to boundaries in advance of these nonstrategic allocations. Q-S10 Caddick Land wishes to reiterate that a balanced approach should be achieved when looking at the development distribution strategy for South Warwickshire. It is apparent that not all of South Warwickshire’s housing need (in addition to unmet needs of neighbouring authorities) can be met within existing urban areas. There is, therefore, a requirement to develop greenfield sites and review Green Belt boundaries. Nonetheless, in terms of the distribution of this growth, not one individual factor as set out within the Options should be undertaken as an isolated approach. A joined up approach, taking into account infrastructure including public transport access and availability, employment locations, facilities and census information should be considered. Overal l, a wider balanced approach should be considered to ensure a variety of development comes forward, such as infilling and extensions to villages, expansions to urban areas and new settlements can be achieved.

Option S3.2a: Subject to the Urban Capacity Study, where we assume a brownfield register will be included to assess all brownfield sites, St Joseph support the inclusion of a policy prioritising brownfield development, if proven to be located within a sustainable area. This approach is in line with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), where it encourages the re-development of brownfield land. Consideration should be given to Paragraph 119 where Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) should set a clear strategy through strategic policies to make as much use as possible of brownfield land.

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 sufficient 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 in locations with existing 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 on greenbelt without developing on greenbelt. QS7.2 For the remaining spatial need 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 growth with the least greenbelt development should 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 threshold approach to small scale growth developments 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. Particularly altes HS2 spoiling lots of woodland etc. 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 issure 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 would not be used as a basis for decision making and should not be used to justify development or review of the greenbelt.

I have to say at the outset that in view of the time factor in getting a comment to you, I have not yet had an opportunity to study the Plan. However I have been advised by a local resident of certain factors arising, which cause me some concern. I appreciate that Part 2 of the Plan is to come later. I understand from my source that the Plan may include building outside village boundaries. If that is the case I am worried that the green field farm land adjoining Pillerton Priors Village Hall might come under the threat of house building, thereby extending the village boundary .( s8.1 and s8.2) If that were to be contemplated then the following factors would arise :- 1. A danger of changing the nature of the Village , which has in recent years absorbed various building, including the 10 houses in Findon’s Field. Have we not met our Quota in this respect? 2 A problem with drainage and sewage, which has been a problem in that area of the Village. 3 A further increase in heavy and speeding traffic on the Kineton Road, which is already suffering a problem with overlarge tractors and farm vehicles, where the road width is insufficient to cope if any vehicles are parked on that road. This an ongoing present problem near the T junction where the Kineton Road joins the Banbury Road. Damage is being caused to verges and gardens, and threatens historic buildings which are close to the roads 4 Large builders lorries would make even more problems, and once any properties were built it would increase the travel levels generally, and add volume to the above T junction, where sight lines are inadequate with speeding traffic. That traffic would increase the volume of vehicles having to pass through Pillerton Hersey ( dangerous bend), andthrough Butlers Marston.

Summary 1.1 This report informs Members of the consultation on The South Warwickshire Local Plan, Issues and Options (2023) which incorporates issues identified in the South Warwickshire Local Plan 2021 Scoping and Call for Sites consultation. The Board report includes comments on the issues and options consultation and seeks any further comments by Members. 2 Consultation 2.1 Stratford-on-Avon District Council and Warwick District Council are working together to prepare a new Local Plan for South Warwickshire. The Plan is expected to replace the strategic policies of the existing Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy which runs until 2031 and Warwick Local Plan until 2029. The Issues and Options consultation is the second stage in preparing the South Warwickshire Local Plan – a new Plan for Stratford-on-Avon and Warwick Districts. The South Warwickshire Local Plan will set out a long-term spatial strategy for housing, jobs, infrastructure and climate change for both Districts to 2050. Following the consultation held in May 2021 on the Scoping and Call for Sites document the two councils have now issued an Issues and Options document for consultation. 2.2 The South Warwickshire Local Plan, Issues and Options Consultation (2023) runs from Monday 9 January to 6 March 2023. Although North Warwickshire does not immediately border either Warwick District or Stratford on Avon District the Borough Council have previously supported the two authorities, in relation to the legal Duty to Co-operate requirements, as part of the Coventry and Warwickshire sub-region involved in undertaking joint planning and evidence base work. Members may recall the Borough’s response to the Scoping and Call for Sites consultation was considered at Executive Board on the 21 July 2021, where the Borough Council made comments on whether there were strategic cross boundary issues that need to be addressed. 2.3 The feedback from the earlier Scoping and Call for Sites consultation feedback has been used to inform the content of this consultation. This second stage consultation seeks views on the Issues identified and the Options proposed as possible solutions to plan for the future of South Warwickshire to 2050. Chapters 1 and 2 deal primarily with local plan process and the current National and Local policy context so no comments or views are noted/proposed. The main chapters relevant to joint planning and the Duty to Cooperate are: • Chapter 3 sets out the vision and strategic objectives centred around five overarching principles that will underpin the Plan and sit at its heart: These include:  A climate resilient and net zero carbon South Warwickshire  A well-designed and beautiful South Warwickshire  A healthy, safe and inclusive South Warwickshire  A well-connected South Warwickshire  A biodiverse and environmentally resilient South Warwickshire • Chapter 4 provides the options for how South Warwickshire’s development needs can be met sustainably including a range of potential spatial growth options and identified locations for possible new settlements. • Chapters 5 and chapter 6 set out the policy options for delivering the area’s economic and housing needs, followed by chapters 7-11 which set out the remaining policy options under the 5 overarching principles. 2.4 Alongside the consultation on the Issues and Options document, a second Call for Sites is also underway, which will provide landowners with the opportunity to submit land/sites for consideration in the plan-making process. 3 Observations 3.1 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 places a legal duty on public bodies to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis with each other to maximise the effectiveness of local plan preparation relating to strategic cross-boundary matters. Its aim is to encourage positive and continual partnership on planning matters that go beyond the boundaries of a single local planning authority’s (LPA) administrative area. As part of the two Councils legal responsibilities towards the local planning Duty to Cooperate requirements the Borough Council’s views are sought in the Issues raised and the Options proposed as possible solutions for inclusion in the South Warwickshire Local Plan (SWLP). 3.2 The consultation seeks responses and views to a series of questions raised throughout the various Chapters noted above. These are provided online and not all questions are considered relevant to, or require a response from, the Borough Council. The full list of questions is attached as Appendix 1 to this report and includes ‘no comment’ responses were considered appropriate or not necessary. 3.3 The recent local plan examination and work leading up to the adoption of the North Warwickshire Local Plan has informed officers initial response to the issues and options consultation questions. Members views and comments on these responses are sought and any additional comments or amendments to the responses listed in Appendix 1 will be added to the Borough Council’s response to the joint South Warwickshire Local Plan consultation. 3.4 In broad terms the responses are focussed on issues relating to the relevant and appropriate cross-boundary matters previously noted in the earlier 2021 consultation. There is broad support and agreement around the various issues and options highlighted within the document and/or raised in the questions. Nevertheless, there is one issue the Council considers should be highlighted and raised in relation to addressing the need/demand for strategic employment sites, including potential logistics. 3.5 In Chapter 5 the supporting text to Issue E1 highlights the HEDNA’s consideration of employment land requirements across Coventry and Warwickshire to 2050, noting that “In addition, a proportion of the 709 hectares of strategic B8 employment land (i.e. warehousing and distribution) identified for the wider Coventry and Warwickshire sub-region will also be required”. It however goes on to say, “Whilst new employment land allocations along the strategic road network do lend themselves well to logistics - and no doubt there would be interest from occupiers – such activities would fail to maximise the economic potential of South Warwickshire and fail to capitalise on the strengths of the existing sectors and skills of the workforce.” The approach taken to the following Issue E7: Core Opportunity Area and Major Investment Sites and the proposed approach to the Plan’s identified Core Opportunity Area and Major Investment Sites, with specific reference to the Gaydon M40 J12 area’s constraint on potential Logistics/B8 uses continues this theme of not supporting logistic uses, , as highlighted in E1 supporting text.. Will the South Warwickshire Local Plan address this issue directly, either through consideration/accommodation of the potential for B8 on appropriate Core Opportunity Area and Major Investment Sites or consider the potential for including a criteria-based policy to address potential general strategic site needs, for both logistics, single site uses (e.g. large scale battery manufacturing) or major employment needs. 3.6 It is noted that the Issues and Options document question E7.2 seeks views on the need for a policy relating to additional economic growth at the major investment sites. This approach is broadly supported, however the supporting text for the Gaydon Area / M40 Junction 12 Major Investment Site seeks to exclude or avoid the site from accommodating strategic logistic uses (i.e. Use Class B8). The reasons for this constraining approach on this site are not clearly defined, the use simply being considered inappropriate for the site. 3.7 In light of the North Warwickshire Local Plan’s Inspector’s requirement to provide for a local plan policy that addressed regional employment needs including logistics, the current pressures and demands for strategic employment and logistics sites (as evidenced by both recent appeals and applications in or adjoining the North Warwickshire Borough area, including Junctions 10, 11 of M42 and junctions 1 and 2 of M69, the recommendations noted recent West Midlands Strategic Employment Sites Study and further related studies underway across the region and in adjoining regions) the need for a general plan policy to address this issue would appear appropriate/necessary. 3.8 The Borough Council’s response to question Q-E7.2 options also includes a note relating to this issue and the Gaydon M40 J12 Major Investment Site, stating “The site also has clear cross linkage and economic supply relationships between logistic uses and the adjoining automotive hub manufacturing and development activities at this location. Such uses should not be seen as ‘mutually exclusive’ in policy or locational terms in these strategic locations”. The interrelated nature strategic logistics are likely to have with the automotive industries located there, the locations suitability for logistics sited on a major motorway junction with central location accessible to the wider motorway network, would appear to indicate that the site could be appropriate and potentially suitable location for logistics uses. In light of experience from the North Warwickshire Local Plan Examination, relevant planning appeals, recommendations from regional employment sites studies and further ongoing work around this issue, the site should at least be considered and assessed in terms of its potential for strategic logistics. 3.9 Nevertheless, beyond this main issue of concern the Borough Council is generally supportive of the Joint Plan approach taken by the two District Councils and hope the responses and option preferences indicated in Appendix 1 are considered helpful and informative. 4 In Summary 4.1 This Council is in general support of: 1. the Joint Plan approach taken by the two District Councils; 2. the issues and options identified in the South Warwickshire Local Plan, Issues and Options (2023) consultation are generally supported except where specific concerns relating to logistics are raised; and, 3. the continued wider cross-boundary work on the issues identified, for the progress towards wider joint planning opportunities for the sub-region. 4.2 To note the concerns raised in relation to the exclusion of strategic logistic needs and potential across the districts and, in particular, at the Gaydon M40 J12 Major Investment Site. 4.3 To note any further comments and observations Members may make on the issues and options raised in the South Warwickshire Local Plan, Issues and Options (2023) consultation. 5 Report Implications 5.1 Environment and Sustainability Implications 5.1.1 The South Warwickshire Local Plan, Issues and Options (2023) consultation has a separate sustainability appraisal, climate change, health and equalities impacts assessment and technical reports included as part of the consultation process. 5.2 Legal Implications 5.2.1 As indicated above, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 imposes a duty to consult in relation to certain strategic cross-boundary matters. As also indicated, whilst their areas do not border the Borough Council’s area, Warwick and Stratford are consulting the Borough Council due to the wider potential sub-regional impact of their plans. Any responses from the Board will contribute to this Council’s duty to respond to such consultation.

I've seen the proposed development plan around Bearley, and I am against it because several considerations have been missed in the proposed development: 1) The village and all surroundings are part of the Green Belt. Development will compromise the green belt, affecting the air quality and the quality of life in extended areas. 2) The proposed development area overlaps the area where the Heart of England forest is. 3) The village is located in rural England, with a particular rural character. Further massive development will destroy the character of the area. 4) The train connection. It is a one way line, with very poor connections, not being able to help if more people are moving in the area. 5) Roads & utilities & other facilities are not dimensioned to take more people. 6) There is no school or any other form of education/child care in the village. The schools in the neighbouring villages are small and insufficient even now. 7) There is no GP in the village, the closest GPs are already overwhelmed. Same for the nearest hospitals. 8) There is no post office, shops etc to serve a community. 9) The area has medium and high risk of flooding (see https://check-long-term-flood-risk.service.gov.uk/map) Reading the proposed documentation, I've noticed the development plan proposed to run to 2043 is based on the assumption of a projected population increase by 14.7% between 2020 to 2043, which at an average occupation rate in the area of 2.5 people/dwelling , it drives to the conclusion that 40,000 new dwellings would be required. A council report is showing a severe aging trend, with a 62% increase of people 75+ by 2043. https://democracy.warwickshire.gov.uk/documents/s20935/Appendix%202%20-%20State%20of%20Warwickshire%202022.pdf United Nation data for UK are showing a steep decline of the growth rate from 0.83% 10 years ago to 0.34% today, with a projection to start with a negative growth rate in 2056. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/population Also, in Warwickshire the immigration rate went down after Brexit and Covid , when many have lost their jobs and left the UK. In the 1st year only the immigrant population number decreased by 16.4%. https://democracy.warwickshire.gov.uk/documents/s20935/Appendix%202%20-%20State%20of%20Warwickshire%202022.pdf In conclusion: -with a very slow (slower and slower) population growth till 2050 -with a severely increasing aging population and with a life expectancy of 81 years in UK -with expected population decrease from 2056 for whom are going to be built all these 40,000 new dwellings? Are really necessary so many new homes now? Why destroy the natural areas to build homes which in 30 years time won't any longer be required? Maybe the number should be reconsidered and tailored to the population needs. Proposals: -Building homes for seniors Currently there are many homes occupied by old people who gladly would move to specialised homes but there is not any available. Their homes could be used by younger families if specialized homes would be available and affordable for senior citizens. -Re-use In 2022 were 917 long term vacant homes in Stratford-on-Avon, 870 in Warwick only , and 250,000 in all England. The numbers are more than significant. Bringing back these homes on the market would solve an important part of the problem. https://www.actiononemptyhomes.org/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=10612986-e6b3-4862-9f69-3fe6e3d6dc10

Q-S1: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire NWBC Response – Option S1a: Identify Strategic Green and Blue Corridors in advance of the Local Nature Recovery Strategy being produced will address and avoid potential loss/development impacts on these corridors and avoid any delays in delivery of Local Nature Recovery Strategy. Q-S2: Please select all options which are appropriate for South Warwickshire NWBC Response –South Warwickshire Plan should reflect National Guidance as amended by local preferences and determinations. Option S2a: Identify areas considered particularly suited to intensification development and develop a design code for each character area. Have a policy supporting intensification within these identified areas where it complies with the relevant design code, appears most relevant/appropriate. No further comment. 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? NWBC Response – Don’t Know, leave for South Warwickshire to determine. The North Warwickshire Local Plan allows small scale development adjoining but outside of identified development boundaries, that is appropriate to and in proportion the size and scale of the settlement and its position within a strategy or hierarchy. However , for sites wholly outside and in open countryside (in effect) no accommodation or threshold is provided for. 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? NWBC Response – As noted above, the North Warwickshire Local Plan allows small scale development adjoining but outside of identified development boundaries, but for smaller settlements in lower category/hierarchy a limit of “usually no more than” 10 dwellings is accommodated. Q-S9: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire NWBC Response – Consider Option S9b: Within this Part 1 Plan, review which settlements have boundaries defined and which do not, as well as the extent of any such boundaries, as most appropriate as current settlement boundaries and situations should be reviewed as part of the overall Plan process. Q-S10: Please add any comments you wish to make about the development distribution strategy for South Warwickshire NWBC Response – No further comment. Issue for South Warwickshire to determine.

I am writing to let you know that I am totally against your proposal to build up to 4,000 houses on our local green belt, 100 yards away and beyond, almost joining Leamington to Kenilworth. We have lived here for almost 30 years and have brought up our children here. we have enjoyed our many walks up to Old Milverton and beyond. It has been a source of therapy and great enjoyment for us and many other people, during courses of chemotherapy and other issues, mental and physical. it is so beneficial to so many people to be able to walk into countryside in our town. I am sure there are many reasons that you will know from other people and Old Milverton Parish Council, why our Green Belt should be preserved and as I am over 70, I cannot fathom out the downloading of your form to add my voice to the protest. So i just hope that you are able to add my name to the protesters and sincerely hope that you will take notice of the General Public’s opinions, which is completely against the Council, whose individual Councillors, we elected to do what the people want.