Yes

Representation ID: 100459

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Loades

Strongly agree and the area of Newbold Pacey and Ashorne should, albeit not within that zone, be seriously considered as areas of natural beauty that should be protected and not surrounded by housing or solar farms.

Yes

Representation ID: 100499

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

na

Yes

Representation ID: 100557

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Newbould

na

Other

Representation ID: 100861

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Judy Steele

I agree - but stop allowing mansion sized properties around Cotswold villages - Ilmington is a good example

Yes

Representation ID: 101229

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Hallam Land Management Limited

Agent: Mr Jack Barnes

The importance of protecting the Cotswold National Landscape is recognised, however clarity and justification on the proposed extent of ‘buffer zones’ is required.

No

Representation ID: 101761

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Vincent Rollason

This development is not good for the area

Yes

Representation ID: 101762

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs AMANDA VENABLES

A 3km Buffer Zone would protect views to and from from the National Landscape and improve consistency of decisions.

No

Representation ID: 101886

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Buffer zones not needed, looks like a way of blocking developments

Yes

Representation ID: 102326

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Crump

It would be instructive to clarify whether Meon Vale falls within the 3 kilometres buffer zone of Cotswold District, as this could then have a bearing upon the approach to be adopted for any future development.

Yes

Representation ID: 102383

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough

Agent: Marrons

The importance of protecting the Cotswold National Landscape is recognised, however clarity and justification on the proposed extent of ‘buffer zones’ is required.

Yes

Representation ID: 103133

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Agent: Marrons

The importance of protecting the Cotswold National Landscape is recognised, however clarity and justification on the proposed extent of ‘buffer zones’ is required.

Yes

Representation ID: 103838

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: H Crook

Definitely need to protect the cotswold area. There is huge pressure to develop in the cotswolds, and the areas adjacent so in order to protect the cotswold and surrounds this is essential.

Developers will oppose this. The rest of the population of south warwickshire and indeed the UK and overseas visitors will highly value this protection.

This should include static van sites and holiday parks.

Needed to protect the character of the cotswolds and its approaches.

Yes

Representation ID: 104178

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Clare Kimpton

Na

Yes

Representation ID: 104233

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Margaret Halligan

Strongly agree, including the introduction of 3km buffer zone around the edge.
Note that SG17 Shipston-on-Stour site falls within that 3km buffer zone, so on that basis should be discounted from the proposed development sites

No

Representation ID: 104358

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Norrie

Extension of existing landscape zones is a nice idea, but the climate crisis is extremely urgent, meaning that adding ‘buffer zones’ onto existing landscape zones, which is likely to impede renewable energy development in the area, is a luxury we should not at present be pursuing.

Yes

Representation ID: 104367

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr andrew gibbons

Strongly agree, including the introduction of 3km buffer zone around the edge. Note that SG17 Shipston-on-Stour site falls within that 3km buffer zone, so on that basis should be discounted from the proposed development sites

Yes

Representation ID: 104478

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: South Warwickshire Foundation trust

We agree and support this approach

Yes

Representation ID: 104899

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Susan Hood

Agree in principle. The National Landscape Area is important, although it is essential to provide more details on how the buffer will work in practice, and that there are sufficient powers to refuse future applications that impact this important landscape area.

Other

Representation ID: 104921

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Ann Colley

The buffer zone should be where NO development should take place at all in any future development. This will protect the Cotswold National Landscape that visitors can to enjoy.

No

Representation ID: 105309

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Warwickshire Wildlife Trust

Yes, in principle. The National Landscape Area is important, although it is essential to provide more details on how the buffer will work in practice, and that there are sufficient powers to refuse future applications that impact this important landscape area.

No

Representation ID: 105311

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Warwickshire Wildlife Trust

Development should not be allowed in the area, and the caveats should be removed (such as that ‘unless there would be an over-riding benefit, for instance to meet an evidenced local housing need’). The Local Plan should be allocating suitable land for housing need.

No

Representation ID: 105480

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes Limited

Agent: Jeremy Flawn

Draft Policy Direction 46 proposes a 3km buffer around the Cotswold National Landscape but lacks clarity on development controls and assessment in this area, particularly when there are no visual connections or effective mitigation. While it aims to assist development management, the lack of specific tools raises concerns. Caution is needed to avoid overstepping the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act (2023) requirements. Conservation should prioritise the national landscape before extending to surrounding areas. I recommend that the authorities adopt a more flexible approach in the next draft, aligning with the National Landscapes Association guidance.

Yes

Representation ID: 106677

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Warwickshire Property and Development Group

Agent: Framptons

We recognise that buffer zones can function as a useful transitional area between the protected AONB and the surrounding land, helping to mitigate any potential negative effects on the AONB's character and biodiversity. However, we question whether such a policy is required given that with or without a designated buffer area the potential visual impact of proposed development on designated AONBs should be carefully assessed. This includes evaluating how the development will be seen from within the AONB and whether it will detract from the scenic quality of the landscape.

Yes

Representation ID: 106905

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Historic England

We welcome the intention to introduce a buffer zone to assist with conserving and enhancing the setting of the National Landscape.

Yes

Representation ID: 107073

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Cotswolds National Landscape Board

Introduction summary: The Board supports the proposal to apply a 3km buffer to the CNL. The purpose of this buffer will be to ensure that CNL considerations are adequately addressed for development proposals within this buffer zone.
We have provided a template CNL policy in Appendix 2,

Full Response:
Yes, the Cotswolds National Landscape (CNL) Board agrees with the approach outlined in Draft Policy Direction 46.
Draft Policy Direction 46 mainly relates to the proposal to create a ‘buffer zone’ around the CNL. The Board support this approach for the reasons outlined below.
Development within the setting of the CNL has the potential to adversely impact on the natural beauty of the CNL. For example, such development has the potential to adversely impact views from (and to) the CNL and / or to increase traffic movements on roads through - and along the boundary of - the CNL.
National planning policy requires great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of National Landscapes. Case law has clarified that this great weight is a relevant consideration for development within the setting of National Landscapes.89
As mentioned in the consultation document, relevant authorities have a statutory duty to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes (the ‘seek to further’ duty).90 This duty also applies in relation to development in the setting of the CNL, as outlined in Defra’s guidance on the ‘seek to further’ duty.91
Further information on this topic is provided in the Board’s Position Statement on Development in the Setting of the CNL.92
Based on the above points, we consider that specifying a buffer zone around the CNL, within the Local Plan, would be an appropriate step to take. This would help to ensure that CNL considerations are taken into account for development proposals in the setting of the CNL. It would also help to ensure that the Board is consulted on relevant proposals. The thresholds above which the Board would like to be consulted, in the CNL and its setting, are provided on the Board’s website.93
What constitutes being in the setting of the CNL will depend on the development that is being proposed. However, we consider that applying a distance of 3km to the buffer will help to ensure that most relevant proposals will be identified and addressed. There may be circumstances where particularly large-scale proposals outside this 3km buffer would also be relevant but these could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
With regards to the wider CNL policy that will be included within the SWLP, a template policy is provided in Appendix 2, below. We recommend that the Councils should incorporate this template policy into the SWLP.

Other

Representation ID: 107191

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

The issues covered in DPD 46 are noted. Differences between the buffer zone and the AONB / national designation and how they operate / are used should be made very clear, for the avoidance of doubt.

As a general comment, there appears to be a significant degree of potential overlap and duplication between the policy areas covered in DPDs 45 – 48. They are all addressing the same general issue, that of the need to control development in areas considered to be of landscape and amenity value. It is not clear what weight or hierarchy applies in terms of this suite of potential policies or whether a particular location might be covered by more than one of these policy designations.

For clarity, a strategic policy setting out a clear hierarchy of areas of restraint might be an alternative approach, with more detailed policies provided where additional information may be required on a particular topic. For example, where development was being proposed, land adjacent to the AONB would receive the highest weighting and levels of scrutiny in terms of its strategic sensitivity, followed by areas of landscape that have been found to be more sensitive to development (following a landscape capacity / sensitivity assessment), followed by local areas in and around settlements etc.

Yes

Representation ID: 107393

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Warwickshire Wildlife Trust

Yes, in principle. pleased to see retention of The National Landscape Area as it’s an important designation, although it is essential to provide more details on how the buffer will work in practice, and that there are sufficient powers to refuse future applications that impact this important landscape area.

No

Representation ID: 107988

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Two of South Warwickshire’s most sustainable locations for growth fall within this potential buffer - Shipston-on-Stour and land at Long Marston, identified as a Strategic Growth Location (SG17) and Potential New Settlement (E1) respectively.

This appears to have been influenced by comments from the Cotswold National Landscape Board to the Issues & Options Consultation. However, there is no basis for a National Landscape buffer in national policy. No evidence been provided to suggest that this is needed. The Cotswolds National Landscape Management Plan 2023 – 2025 doesn't refer to a buffer or suggest that one should be established. The Management Plan serves as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications within the National Landscape and its setting. The current policy approach to the National Landscape in the Stratford Core Strategy should be carried over in the absence of evidence or justification tor a buffer. Development shouldn't be precluded in sustainable locations where schemes can be designed in a manner which doesn't adversely impact the National Landscape or its setting.

NPPF Paragraph 189 already requires 'great weight' to be given to conserving and enhancing 'landscape and scenic beauty' in National Landscapes. It also requires "…development within their setting should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the designated areas.” The requirement for development within the 'setting' of National Landscapes to be sensitively located and designed means that a policy on this matter and a buffer are unnecessary.

No

Representation ID: 108099

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: Pegasus Group

Two of South Warwickshire’s most sustainable locations for growth fall within this potential buffer - Shipston-on-Stour and land at Long Marston, identified as a Strategic Growth Location (SG17) and Potential New Settlement (E1) respectively.

This appears to have been influenced by comments from the Cotswold National Landscape Board to the Issues & Options Consultation. However, there is no basis for a National Landscape buffer in national policy. No evidence been provided to suggest that this is needed. The Cotswolds National Landscape Management Plan 2023 – 2025 doesn't refer to a buffer or suggest that one should be established. The Management Plan serves as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications within the National Landscape and its setting. The current policy approach to the National Landscape in the Stratford Core Strategy should be carried over in the absence of evidence or justification tor a buffer. Development shouldn't be precluded in sustainable locations where schemes can be designed in a manner which doesn't adversely impact the National Landscape or its setting.

NPPF Paragraph 189 already requires 'great weight' to be given to conserving and enhancing 'landscape and scenic beauty' in National Landscapes. It also requires "…development within their setting should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the designated areas.” The requirement for development within the 'setting' of National Landscapes to be sensitively located and designed means that a policy on this matter and a buffer are unnecessary.

No

Representation ID: 108242

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (South Midlands)

Agent: Pegasus Group

A 3km buffer zone around the Cotswolds National Landscape is proposed. Two of South Warwickshire’s most sustainable locations for growth fall within this potential buffer - Shipston-on-Stour and land at Long Marston, which are identified as a Strategic Growth Location (SG17) and Potential New Settlement (E1) respectively.

The comment from the Cotswolds National Landscape Board as part of the Issues & Options consultation, which predictably advocated for the implementation of a buffer, appears to have strongly influenced the Councils in formulating this policy direction, but there is no basis for a National Landscape buffer in national policy, nor has any evidence been provided to suggest that this is needed. Notably, the Cotswolds National Landscape Management Plan 2023 – 2025 does not refer to a buffer nor suggest that one should be established by local authorities. The Management Plan already serves as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications within the National Landscape and its setting in South Warwickshire, and it is contended that the current policy approach with regards to the National Landscape in the Stratford Core Strategy, which referred to the Management Plan, should be carried over. There is no evidence or justification for the SWLP Part 1 to go beyond the provisions of the Management Plan in implementing a buffer, and development should certainly not be precluded in sustainable locations where schemes can be designed in a manner which does not adversely impact on the National Landscape and its setting.