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

You are wasting people time you will do what you want anyway.

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

I am specifically opposed to the development of land in the greenbelt areas in/around Weston under Wetherley and other similar small greenbelt villages due to the impact on the rural character of the area of the North Leamington greenbelt. The climate emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land. This is a weak and bizarre argument - building in rural villages will only result in more and longer car journeys. There are other ways mitigating against the climate emergency without developing on greenbelt land, which itself is truly harmful. There is no other option to comment on issue S6 without the plan (a review of the greenbelt boundary). Why is this? 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 of 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 are almost as many sites submitted as responses received!). This tiny number of respondents is so small it should not be used as a basis for decision making and should not be used to justify development or review of the greenbelt. Why were parish councils not informed at stage 1? Why were notices not put outside village halls? Sadly the only conclusion I can draw is you did not want to engage the local communities with stage 1 in an open, honest and transparent way. Please can you answer these questions in your response to me. Many Thanks.

The green belt should be maintained as far as possible, to retain a clear area of countryside between major settlements so that these settlements retain their identity and don't merge into each other. The green belt is beneficial to physical and mental health as well as biodiversity. Any development of the green belt should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances after all other options have been considered.

It is disappointing and surprising that there is no option to respond to issue S6, namely the key question of the review of green belt boundaries. As per my other answers, protecting the green belt is important to keep the separate identity of distinct settlements and prevent Leamington being subsumed into Greater Coventry. But even more, there is an ever growing need for recreational space that is not over-developed but remains deep, real nature, where people can actually decompress after ever growing demands of working from home, digital worlds and overpopulation and overcrowding.

I have addressed this in previous responses, but the development strategy has an unfair distribution of new housing in the north compared to the south, with the north bearing the brunt. This area has already been burdened by a lot of characterless expansion in recent years and the population increases have not been matched by expansion in facilities such as the number of hospital beds. There is much more traffic on the roads and I would definitely say that these developments have negatively impacted my enjoyment of living in Kenilworth. The thought of further urban spread makes me feel sad and anxious for the future. I also question the wisdom of the Council's principle driver for development i.e. the need for economic growth that leads to an influx of workers needing homes. Where is the evidence that this will make the existing residents happier and healthier, let alone be sustainable? Would it not be better to just concentrate on providing the types and numbers of jobs for the existing population and not turn Coventry, Kenilworth, Leamington and Warwick into a huge urban conurbation? Surely growth makes achieving net zero impossible?

Please consider alternative options rather than building on the Greenbelt around Old Milverton. I walk the loop from Dragon Cottage through the field overlooking Guy’s Cliffe, through the church yard and the village and back to Guy’s Cliffe Avenue almost every day. The space, the sky, nature - they make a massive difference to my day. I love the walk and have many photos - please save it for another generation to enjoy as countryside.

One of the key reasons for establishing BUABs is to guide and control future development in settlements. It seems logical therefore that in the general case and outside of a growth area, development might be permitted within a BUAB but should be strictly controlled outside of the BUAB. Otherwise we risk a "free for all" where development might take place randomly and potentially inappropriately around certain small villages, which could lead to potential "sprawl". A lot of effort has been expended by residents of local settlements to create NDPs or Village Plans and, as a key part of this process, residents have provided their views on how they would like to see their communities developing. These views should be respected as far as possible - otherwise, if ignored, this process would appear to be a waste of time, effort and expenditure on the part of all involved. While I can see the logic behind the categorisation of LSVs, I feel it is not sufficiently granular to reflect the nature of each village and therefore the imposition of what seems to be an arbitrary housing target on a small rural village with few facilities seems inappropriate.

Consideration of any development in Long Marston needs to consider the impact on Stratford-upon-Avon. Currently there are a significant number of houses with outline planning permission contingent on addressing traffic issues in Stratford-upon-Avon. Suitable mitigation and infrastructure should be in place before any future development can come forward. I'm supportive of a review of the Green Belt boundary as part of the plan review. Stratford has Green Belt defined in the north of the town and my view is that this is skewing development options being brought forward. This is a particular issues to the south of the river due to there only being two road crossing available and the knock on impact this is having on traffic in the town. The plan should seek to identify sustainable locations for development and not necessary be hindered by Green Belt, where a sensible adjustment can be allowed for and where this does not hinder the principle reason for Green Belt policy, for which I am broadly supportive of.

In the age that we are in regarding environmental issues, surely any area that has been given Green belt status should be kept as such. As per the National Planing Policy Framework an area should maintain its Green belt status if it meets any one of the 5 purposes of Green belt. Other options, outside of the Green belt, should be fully considered before proposing areas that no longer meet all 5 of the purposes.

We strongly believe that the proposed development of Green Belt sites in the North Leamington area is not beneficial for the local area or its residents. It is not in line with current government policy to develop on Green Belt sites. Accessible green space for leisure, walking, exercise etc. is being lost with each year as new housing developments and major infrastructure projects proceed with very little regard for the environment - the Warwickshire countryside will no longer exist if the current rate of building development continues. If the Green Belt areas continue to be used for this purpose, there will be no green areas for future generations to enjoy. The Green Belt areas are a haven for wildlife and trees - developing here would not only harm the local ecosystem but also negatively impacts our nation's wider commitment to reduce climate change. They also provide great agricultural land which is used extensively - supporting jobs in this sector, food supply, and reducing emissions by providing locally available food that has a low carbon footprint. We strongly urge the planning committees to prevent these priceless Green Belt areas from being developed on.

An area should maintain its green belt status if it meets any one of the 5 purposes of green belt, as defined in the national planning policy framework

This process should fully examine all other options, including new settlement options outside of the green belt, before starting a study to review green belt boundaries in south Warwickshire.

I believe we need to protect the greenbelt for future generations. It contributes to biodiversity and is even more relevant in South Warwickshire where HS2 has already harmed it. Development should be on brownfield and urban development first. People who live near the greenbelt value it for the beautiful views, wildlife and role it plays in their wellbeing.

The plan to build upon the fields by Old Milverton would be disastrous for the community in North Leamington. This area offers many health and recreational benefits and was much used during the pandemic. It gives Leamington its unique character and helps to balance the town with much needed countryside. Building on this land will destroy this character and deprive residents of the benefits of green space.

It should be focused on the north of Warwick District which had very little green field development in the 2017 local plan as it was all forced on south Warwickshire.

The local plan seems to take no view of the enviroment, biodiversity or the destruction already beset on Warwickshire by HS2 or the current local plan. Destroying greenbelt land when the enviroment is facing such harm with global warming and food provisions such an issue for UK and the world, doesn't seem forward thinking or sustainable. Whilst accepting a growing population, brownfield sites must be fully utilised before any consideration for destruction of countryside should even be proposed. Agricultural land should be protected to provide food security. Warwickshire is a rural county and the towns have their own identity and character which should be protected, and such increases in urbanisation encroaching into green belts destroy the very nature of this. Leamington has already increased significantly with destruction of large swathes of farming land to the south of Leamington. Many new homes are still available in this area and other non-green belt sites should be prioritised. Green belts were designed to protect towns and the surrounding countryside for future generations, they should not need amending due to a period of time lapsing, that land requires protection as much today and in the future as it did when the green belt status was issued. An area should maintain its green belt status if it meets any one of the 5 purposes of greenbelt land according to paragraph 138 of the national planning policy framework. The north of Leamington in particular does not have sufficient amenities to support the proposed expansion of urban sprawl and will therefore cause an excessive increase in traffic through the town centre which the town cannot support. Schools in the area are already at capacity, with 2 local schools having 3 form entry and not having sufficient space to provide changing facilities for children to change for PE lessons.

Issue S6: A review of Green Belt boundaries A weakening of protection for our green belt would lead to urban sprawl over precious countryside and farmland. The green belt provides important green corridors for both animals and people alike. Covid lockdowns have highlighted the importance of such areas to peoples physical and mental health. Further more these areas are not easily accessible by main roads. Any housing development on these sites would lead to further road congestion and the resulting air pollution and negative environmental impacts.

I am writing to express my objection to the South Warwickshire Local Development Plan proposal for development in Old Milverton and Blacktown Parishes. My objection is based on the evidence provided on the website of the OMB Parish Council, which outlines the negative impact of the proposed development on the environment, heritage, and infrastructure of the area. Additionally, the proposed development would contravene the England Planning Law, which seeks to protect the countryside and promote sustainable development. Firstly, the proposed development would have a significant impact on the environment of the area. The OMB Parish Council website cites concerns about the destruction of wildlife habitats, increased pollution, and the loss of green spaces. These impacts would be in direct contravention of the England Planning Law, which requires that new developments should protect and enhance the natural environment. Secondly, the proposed development would have a detrimental effect on the heritage of the area. Old Milverton and Blacktown Parishes are home to a number of historic buildings and sites, which would be threatened by the proposed development. The England Planning Law requires that new developments should take into account the heritage value of an area and seek to preserve it wherever possible. Lastly, the proposed development would put a strain on the infrastructure of the area. The OMB Parish Council website highlights concerns about increased traffic, pressure on local services, and the impact on the local economy. These concerns are echoed in the England Planning Law, which requires that new developments should be supported by adequate infrastructure. In conclusion, I strongly object to the South Warwickshire Local Development Plan proposal for development in Old Milverton and Blacktown Parishes. The proposed development would have a negative impact on the environment, heritage, and infrastructure of the area, and would contravene the England Planning Law. I urge you to reconsider the proposal and work towards a more sustainable and responsible plan for the future of the area. Yours sincerely, Claire Muddyman

The Green belt land at Old Milverton should not be developed as it provides an area for walking and relaxation for local residents, which is beneficial to both physical and mental health. In addition the agricultural land should be maintained for food security and the hegerows maintained for biodiversity.

The need for additional housing in South Warwickshire to cover the unmet demands of Coventry needs to be re-assessed in the light of the agreed long term errors in assessment of the population of Coventry. This has been recognised at the highest levels, but not yet implemented, though the HEDNA included in this SWLP assessment recognises the fact and proposes one solution to the issue. Once built, the Green Belt land that is lost cannot be recovered.

I would like to underline the importance of the purpose of the Green Belt. Release of land from the Green Belt should only be done in exceptional circumstances. Dispersed development and infill development in the Green Belt cannot be considered as an exceptional circumstance. Any development in the Green Belt needs to be part of a sustainable growth strategy that promotes sustainable travel, particularly rail travel, and includes the delivery of essential infrastructure.

I am thoroughly dismayed that the North Leamington Green Belt is under threat of development once again. Many people use this area for leisure and exercise and it’s important that we preserve this for future generations. It is also crucial that we protect this land for agriculture at a time when global food supplies are not secure. We must have the opportunity to grow more of our food locally. I also question why we have to revisit this issue so often. It has been decided time and again that the Green Belt land north of Leamington is not a suitable location for housing development. Please could the local plan come with an agreement that there will be no further discussion of Green Belt development for a least ten years.

Once again we find ourselves needing to remind potential developers that the small intimate village we chose to live in, with limited services, has a defined boundary that we all respect and understand. As a community we have been considerate and understanding of the need for housing and have, where reasonably presented, acceded to that but proposals that fundamentally change the structure of our village and the very core of what it is need to be objected to as they are not sympathetic to us all.

I am very concerned about the proposed plans to develop the Green Belt and the long term impact that this will have upon our environment, the health and well-being of our community, food production, wild life and the climate as a whole. I feel the focus should be upon brown field sites and urban regeneration. Green Field sites may well be desirable for building companies who can create executive homes but these will not meet the needs of those who require affordable housing close to their working environments. Building on the North Leamington Green Belt land and along the A452 will have a significant impact upon congestion between Kenilworth and Leamington Spa. Once our countryside is lost we cannot regain it and once it is 'ok' to build on the Green Belt...where will it stop?

I would strongly object to the proposal to build houses and industrial units on the land between Meon Vale and Long Marston estates, for the following reasons :- 1. This is Green Belt and prime agricultural land, which should be used to produce home-grown food to reduce imports. 2. If Meon Vale and Long Marston estates are joined together it would create one large "New Town", which would destroy the original plans for separate "villages" to blend in with the local area. 3. There is insufficient infrastructure to cope with such a large development. The local roads are already struggling with the volume of traffic from current housing development. Other services would also suffer, such as policing and sewage works. 4. It would cause damage to the environment by destroying green areas, which should be preserved in line with Government Guidelines to reduce the effects of climate change.

I find it astonishing that there was no ability to comment on Section 6 regarding the review of Greenbelt areas in Leamington. You can not have a genuine consultation process where consultation is only allowed on selective issues. In fact the whole consultation seems to have adopted a distinctly undemocratic bent: - certain areas have apparently been pre-selected for development and this development agenda seems to be being pushed through by offering no real alternatives with other sites in the various 'strategies' - some of these greenbelt sites are sites that the National Planning Inspector has explicitly disapproved previous development plans for within the last 6 years, so these sites should not have even been considered when their importance as greenbelt sites has already been made clear - while recognising the importance of green spaces, green belts and farming land no apparent attempts have been made to preserve these despite national guidance, despite government policy and despite public usage and demonstrable needs - the process of responding to the consultation seems to have been made complex and inordinately cumbersome and in a digital age vast amounts of information (sometimes inaccurate) seems to have been presented with the aim of purposefully overwhelming anyone who wishes to take issue with the plans but who does not wish to spend their entire life digesting over two thousand pages! I think a much more open, more concise and much easier interface is required if you genuinely wish to seek more public responses, this attempt seems to be more to push through a predetermined agenda.

(SECTION 7) I would like to draw attention to the fact that in 2017 the Planning Inspector affirmed the significance of the Green Belt north of Leamington. In his response to the current Warwick District Local Plan he referenced the need “to maintain the separate identity of surrounding villages such as Leek Wootton and Cubbington and avoid significant reductions in the gap to Kenilworth” (paragraph 91). He also said that: “Development of the land in question would involve a substantial expansion of the built up area into currently open countryside to the north of Leamington Spa. It would have a significant adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the character and appearance of the area” (paragraph 201). Given the recent incursions of HS2 and the development at Thickthorn it is all the more important to protect and preserve this farmland and wildlife habitat. All of the Planning Inspector's arguments still stand, and indeed could be said to be even more pertinent now than they were six years ago. (SECTION 6) Given the long-term implications of this consultation for local communities there should have been an opportunity to comment on Section 6: Review of Green Belt boundaries. Also, it should be acknowledged that the 54% figure quoted at the start of Section 6 is misleading. This statistic is being used to show support for the premise of Green Belt development. However, crucially, it neglects to mention that 45% of respondents to this question in the stage 1 consultation were developers, landowners or businesses (Consultation Statement January 2022, page 275) leaving presumably only a small proportion of other respondents supporting the idea. It cannot be right to quote a figure made up to such a large extent of groups with a vested interest in developing Green Belt land without acknowledging this underlying bias. (OVERALL) The development strategy is flawed because a presumption has been made in favour of Green Belt development without the case being proven that it is necessary. Indeed national policy is moving the other way with the Secretary of State stating in December that the existence of the Green Belt represents a genuine constraint on development and that housing need numbers do not have to be met if the only way to do this is by building on Green Belt land. The SWLP strategy was developed prior to the December announcement and assumptions should now be revisited taking into account the protections for Green Belt in national policy, more realistic data on housing need projections and the views of the local communities whom local authorities are supposed to work.

I wish to strongly object to any reclassification of the Greenbelt in this area for the following reasons- - The existing Green Belt designation shows that previous authorities and constituents believe the urban sprawl from Leamington Spa and Warwick is inappropriate into the designation in this area. As Kenilworth expands to the south Leamington should not expand to the north in order to maintain the green space between settlements. There are no exceptional circumstances which changes previous policy. - Kenilworth and Leamington Spa green belt should be kept to ensure the space is kept to the maximum to all residents from the Warwickshire and West Midlands area to enjoy the open countryside. - The Greenbelt's purpose is stopping encroaching into the countryside. This allows families and individuals to enjoy the countryside from walking distance from Leamington Spa. This aligns to the government emerging policy to ensure that people can enjoy greenspace from 15 minutes from their home. The removal of this land from the greenbelt would push access to the countryside to be further from many residents in Leamington Spa. - Development on the land that could be removed from the Greenbelt is not sustainable development, which should have great weight in any decision making. Transport links in this area are poor or non-existent. This would lead to more environmental issues, plus social issues with increased traffic. Further development would be close to the Avon river catchment adding to the cumulative impact from the existing developed land. - There is other land in the authority closer to transport links plus other infrastructure that should be utilised before green belt land is removed. I believe that any reclassification of this land in question would break at least one of the 5 purposes of the Greenbelt and I strongly object to any reclassification.

I am specifically opposed to development of land in the greenbelt areas around Hunningham and other similar small greenbelt villages due to the impact on the rural character of the area of the Leamington/Coventry Greenbelt. The Climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land. This is a weak and bizarre argument. Sustainable development is perfectly possible without developing on greenbelt land, which itself is truly harmful. There is no option to comment on issue S6 within the plan (a review of the greenbelt boundaries). 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 and the views expressed can in no way be considered representative of the whole population of the area. The first consultation did not give details of potential areas for development so residents Ire unaware of the impact and did not therefore participate. It is likely, given these very small numbers, that many of the responses Ire from developers or landowners who would directly benefit from such development (there Ire almost as many sites submitted as responses received!). The views of this tiny number of respondents should not be used as a basis for decision making and should not be used to justify development or review of the greenbelt.