Q-H6: Please select all options which are appropriate for South Warwickshire
selected
selected
selected
No answer given
selected
selected
selected
not within built up areas
selected
selected
selected
In respect of Wootten Wawen and the surrounding area, development is welcomed in order to bring into the village younger people due to the majority of the current population being more of the older generation. Young families with children will support the viability of Wotton Wawen primary school. Furthermore, having a greater population will also sustain the local businesses in the area. Notwithstanding the above comments, the amount of homes must be limited to a maximum of 50. There must be a careful balance as introducing more homes will also put a strain on the current infrastructure, which includes, but not limited to the following:- - The roads through Wootton Wawen have junctions which have very limited visibility on the A3400, i.e., Pettiford Lane, Pennyford Lane, turning into Wootton Hall. Despite the speed limit being 30 miles per hour, cars drive in excess of this limit and there have been a number of accidents. - The state of the roads in Wootton Wawen are not in good repair. More homes will only result in ‘rat-runs’ being created and will damage those minor roads. - Wootton Wawen has a railway station however, there is no car park which services the station. Whilst it may be anticipated that people living in the village who wish to commute will walk to the station, in practice that will not be the case. Therefore, there will be a build-up of traffic around the station and the surrounding roads causing a disruption to those living near to the station. Furthermore, the roads leading up to the station are narrow roads with junctions which have limited visibility. - There will inevitability be a build up of traffic which will increase the road traffic noise at the busiest of times. - There is no GP surgery in Wootton Wawen, the nearest surgery is in Henley-in-Arden which will increase traffic flow (see above). - Wootton Wawen has flood plains, where more houses will place a strain on the drainage infrastructure This is evident with the increase of homes on Pennyford Lane where at the wettest part of the year, the lane gets flooded. In addition to the above comments, the following should also be taken into account: - Wootton Wawen has a great deal of history. Having a large development will have an effect on the setting of the great deal of listed buildings within the village. - The Green Belt status of Wootton Wawen. A larger development will only decrease the wildlife areas in the village.
selected
selected
selected
No answer given
selected
selected
selected
As referred to in our response Q- H1- 1, the previous population projections have provided for a substantial over estimation of the population growth for Coventry and as a consequence the requirement for housing in the South Warwickshire area. The current local plan is therefore providing for a population that has been over estimated. Nowhere in the SWLP document is there any recognition of the impact of this population over estimate on the current plan, with its subsequent knock on effects to the 2029-50 plan. Current Plan with Specific Regard to Kenilworth • The 2021 census established a population for Kenilworth of 22,538 and it has approximately 10,000 households. • The Local Plan for the period 2017 to 2029 identified just under 2,000 new houses to be built in Kenilworth, with very few of them to be built by 2021, so the plan envisaged a 20% increase in the number of households in Kenilworth. In addition, a further 1,800 houses are scheduled to be built on the neighbouring Kings Hill during the plan period. • The demand for these houses is questionable. • Demographer Merie Gering identified that the projected need for new houses was based on population growth projections that failed to materialise. The concerns raised have been subject to further investigation by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), who have acknowledged a substantial over estimation of the population of Coventry. • The progress to date on delivering the proposed number of new houses in Kenilworth would tend to support in practice the claims of Mr Gering. The two major developments in Kenilworth (East Kenilworth – Crewe Lane to Woodside and Thickthorn) are running some 3 to 4 years behind the start dates identified in the 2019 plan, with many developers reticent to commence speculative building. • The 2029-50 plan, Page 378, N51 of the detailed Sustainability Appraisal, identifies seven broad locations as reasonable alternatives for development and on page 590 identifies the opportunity for the provision of up to 2,000 homes in Kenilworth. • With the nearly 2,000 homes to be built under the current plan, this amounts to an additional 4,000 homes in total since 2020, an increase of 40%. • At present the main north – south artery through Kenilworth, together with routes feeding on to it, is seriously congested at peak times, with traffic increasingly using rat runs along residential streets. This is before the impact of the 2,000 additional houses in the current plan. To add further housing of any number, let alone a further 2,000 in the future plan will not be accommodated by the road structure. With particular reference to Kenilworth South, the construction of some 235 houses on Rouncil Lane (6th Form College) and the Woodcote development in Leek Wootton will add further pressure to traffic congestion at the junction of Rouncil Lane with Warwick Road and up to the Texaco roundabout, which will already be congested from the additional houses to be built in Thickthorn and Crewe Lane. • Nowhere does the plan demonstrate how such an increase in houses and resulting traffic may be sustainable and indeed makes no proposal for any substantial infrastructure improvements to attempt to sustain it. • We believe that, with the construction of houses planned to be built during the current plan, Kenilworth will be full and unable to absorb further building as is intimated in the SWLP.
selected
selected
selected
Currently large developments are lacking in character. With the proposals a new settlement(s), I am concerned of an unattractive housing estate if only 1-2 developers are involved. It would be better to split large developments down and use a number of developers, with different styles of build.
selected
selected
selected
No answer given
selected
selected
selected
No answer given
selected
selected
selected
WDC absolutely must provide a permanent site to provide places for gypsies and travellers to stay legally rather than forcing them off land every few weeks. It's a win-win situation when the right sites are chosen.
selected
selected
selected
No answer given
selected
selected
selected
No answer given
selected
selected
selected
No answer given
selected
selected
selected
No answer given
selected
selected
selected
Ashow is a beautiful, unspoilt, very small village which deservedly enjoys the protection of being in the green belt. There need to be exceptional circumstances to justify building on green belt and none have been presented. The plot of land in question sits outside of the village boundaries, so does not qualify for infill consideration, and is in a conservation area that the council itself has identified (Ashow Conservation Area report) is especially important to preserve the character of. There is no mains drainage in Ashow and there are only 2 roads - one of which is very narrow, steep road with no space for a pedestrian footpath or street lighting and with no turning circle at the end which cause congestion and difficulties turning already, particularly for deliveries / oil tankers / horse and sheep trailers etc. A Paper was prepared to support the proposals for housing allocations in villages, as set out in the 2016 Local Plan Modifications. This work analysed each of the main rural settlements in the district according to their current population and settlement size, service availability and accessibility. This was used to identify those villages which provide the most sustainable locations which can support, and potentially benefit from, some development. Specifically this analysis generated a score for each settlement which allowed villages to be classified in the Local Plan as follows: The highest score was Hampton Magna with 57, and, more locally, Leek Wootton with 38, Stoneleigh with 25, and Ashow with a minimum score with Blackdown of 16. (1) I request that the proposed development of 10 houses offered to the Council in Ashow is not accepted as part of the go forward Housing Plan following the Council's request for land to be identified for housing or other uses. The site identified is outside the "Village Envelope" and any infill development needs to be within the village boundary and should be based upon housing needs. We have 2 houses in the village currently for sale that have not been sold despite being on the market for over 6 months, so there is not any genuine housing need and we should not have to continually defend planning applications for it going forward which will be costly for the local authority and probably a waste of taxpayer's money when the site is properly assessed totally unsuitable. (2) I request that the development of light industrial units opposite Dial House Farm is not accepted as part of the go forward Housing Plan following the Council's request for land to be identified for housing or other uses. There is no one unemployed in Ashow village that requires employment. Also any development generally out of Leamington towards Kenilworth means that the countryside and green belt between the towns will be lost. It will end up like Leamington - Warwick where there is no green boundary now at all between the towns. We live in the countryside but there are fewer and fewer areas for rural activities - horse riding / basics such as walking the dog through pleasant countryside which was so important for everyone's mental health during Covid. People living in Kenilworth and Leamington town centres love to walk to our village as it is a pleasant country walk within easy reach to them – and accessible without need of a car, with a lovely village club open to serve tea etc half way.
selected
selected
selected
No answer given
selected
selected
selected
No answer given
selected
selected
selected
- Q-H2-2: The basis on which affordable housing is delivered must be clearly evidence based so the best option is dependent upon the evidence. However, in general terms it is likely that the Plan area is too broad for a one policy fits all approach and the HEDNA evidence clearly supports this suggesting a higher level of need in Warwick District than Stratford. We consider a more highly localised approach would be too complex to assess and administer and therefore option 2b is likely to deliver the most appropriate levels.
selected
selected
selected
No answer given
selected
selected
selected
No answer given
selected
selected
selected
No answer given
selected
selected
selected
Issue H3: Providing the right size of homes Option 3a is our preferred approach and minimum standards should be considered within the Part 2 plan unless standards can be fully evidenced. Introducing space standards must not be so inflexible that it renders sites unviable and any future policy on these standards needs to ensure it does not affect viability to make sure the Plan is consistent with NPPF/PPG and can justified by the Council. Option H3c asks whether a requirement to meet optional Building Regulations M4(2)/M4(3) as standard should be introduced. We would like to remind the Council of the increased emphasis on Local Plan viability testing in Paragraph 58 of the NPPF and that the PPG states that “The role for viability assessment is primarily at the plan making stage. Viability assessment should not compromise sustainable development but should be used to ensure that policies are realistic, and that the total cumulative cost of all relevant policies will not undermine deliverability of the plan” (Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 10-002-20190509). M4 (3) of the Building Regulations and Space Standards have a cost implication and therefore including the requirement for new housing to be built to M4 (3) could make schemes unviable. The Council should also note that ensuring that residents have the ability to stay in their homes for longer through the provision of wheelchair housing, is not, in itself, an appropriate manner of meeting the housing needs of older people. Adaptable houses do not provide the on-site support, care and companionship of specialist older persons’ housing developments nor do they provide the wider community benefits such as releasing under occupied family housing as well as savings to the public purse by reducing the stress of health and social care budgets. The recently published Healthier and Happier Report by WPI Strategy (September 2019) calculated that the average person living in specialist housing for older people saves the NHS and social services £3,490 per year. A supportive local planning policy framework will be crucial in increasing the delivery of specialist older persons’ housing and it should be acknowledged that although adaptable housing can assist it does not remove the need for specific older person’s housing. Housing particularly built to M4(3) standard may serve to institutionalise an older person’s scheme reducing independence contrary to the ethos of older persons and particularly extra care housing. In addition, as M4 (2) is to be incorporated into the Building Regulations and therefore there is no need for the plan to repeat this element.
selected
selected
selected
No answer given
selected
selected
selected
Issue H3: Providing the right size of homes - We accept option H3c. However, if the Council does decide to adopt space standards this must be a standard policy to ensure a level playing field and be evidenced and justified.
selected
selected
selected
No answer given
selected
selected
selected
No comment
selected
selected
selected
No gypsy or travelling show people sites in Warwickshire. [Further text redacted]
selected
selected
selected
No answer given
selected
selected
selected
No answer given
selected
selected
selected
No answer given
selected
selected
selected
H2-2: Answer: H2-2c – A LOCALISED approach, at Parish level IS ESSENTIAL. It should certainly be applied in terms of the actual building of affordable homes. If it is still desirable to have a SW wide policy then the use of commuted sums would be an innovative way of raising funds which could then be spent nearer to where the affordables are actually required. If you want an example of how the current system does NOT WORK just look at Barford which had c.200 homes forced upon it by predatory developers, due to a lack of a Local Plan. Of those c.40% were built as affordables against a HNS assessment of about 10- 12 houses and that brought in vast numbers of occupants with no local connection and in consequence considerable community disruption which will take decades to stabilise. H3: Probably Option H3c but consider some flexibility H5: H5c A case by case approach should be the only way to deal with self/custom builds. H6: A case by case approach is essential. The allocation of sites early in the SWLP development is actually discriminatory against the G&T community. They must have exactly the same rights, as other members of the wider community, to find suitable accommodation.