Issue and Options 2023
Search form responses
Results for Rosconn Strategic Land search
New searchYes, growth of existing settlements in South Warwickshire is imperative to deliver the overall growth targets, and achieve the Vision and overarching principles. The need for housing, affordable and specialist housing, green infrastructure, improved facilities and infrastructure is within the towns and villages. Those needs are best met sustainably adjacent to the settlements. The village of Alderminster has not been included within the Settlement Analysis evidence supporting the South Warwickshire Local Plan. In the absence of any analysis, the following comments are therefore made in support of growth at Alderminster. Land east of Skylark Road, Alderminster is allocated for up to 20 self-build and/or custom-build dwellings under Proposal SCB.2: East of Skylark Road, Alderminster in the Site Allocations Plan (SAP) Revised Preferred Options Consultation (June 2022). The site was also identified as a site that is likely to be deliverable in the SHLAA (2021) under reference ALD.05. The SHLAA assessed the site and also an adjacent piece of land to the north as one parcel concluding that the site is ‘likely to be deliverable’. The SHLAA also stated that development could be accommodated on the lower part of the site which can be mitigated effectively through landscaping and planting. Rosconn Strategic Land wish to develop the lower part of the site for custom /self-build which is therefore in line with the SHLAA assessment. In terms of the site context, land to the south-west between Shipston Road and the site was granted planning permission for 25 dwellings. This site has now been built out and is known as Skylark Road. Rosconn Strategic Land east of Skylark Road would utilise the existing access. The land interest east of Skylark Road lies adjacent to the built up area boundary on two of its boundaries, with the north-east and south-east boundaries adjoining agricultural land. The north and eastern boundaries also form the proposed built up area boundary in the draft SAP. In the adopted Core Strategy for Stratford-on-Avon, Alderminster is defined as a Category 4 Local Service Village and is therefore considered a suitable location for development. The site lies within Flood Zone 1, which is the lowest possible risk of flooding and is suitable for development. The site falls within the Stour Feldon Edge land parcel of the Stour Valley Landscape Character Area, and there are no special landscape designations in this area that could impact the site. A Landscape and Visual Appraisal was prepared for the site by FPCR, their assessment concluded that new development will appear in context as a modest extension to existing residential development within the village. There are limited landscape features within the site and the existing vegetation along the south-eastern boundary will be retained and enhanced as part of proposed development. There is a Grade II* listed building to the north of the site (west of Shipston Road) known as ‘The Church of St Mary and the Holy Cross’, and there are also various other grade II listed buildings within the village. Of the identified designated heritage assets, only Quince Cottage and the Church have potential inter-visibility with the site. Any tentative relationship between the cottage and its setting or between the church and the application site has been severed by the construction of the intervening residential estate. Development east of Skylark Road would therefore have no impact on the settings of any listed buildings. When taking account of the information above, land east of Skylark Road is considered a suitable location to accommodate development within the village of Alderminster. Paragraph 141 of the NPPF states that before changes are made to Green Belt boundaries, the LPA will need to demonstrate that they have considered all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development. LPA’s must therefore demonstrate that they have made use of suitable and underutilised land before Green Belt land is released. Land off Skylark Road, Alderminster should therefore be given priority as this land is outside of the Green Belt and is considered to be a deliverable site to help deliver homes within the plan period
Yes, Rosconn Strategic Land support the allocation of other sites as necessary for short-term development. These sites should include those already allocated for development within the Draft Site Allocations Plan, such as land east of Skylark Road. (Proposal SCB.2 of the SAP). This site has been allocated as a site to deliver 20 self-build and/or custom-build. Its suitability, availability and deliverability has therefore been assessed, and found to be acceptable. The requirement to allocate sites for self-build and custom-build across the District should be confirmed within the South Warwickshire Local Plan Part 1 Document.
The following comments are made in respect of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) for Bidford-on-Avon. The Small Settlement Location (SSLs) for Bidford-on-Avon includes Rosconn Strategic Land interest south of Avon Way, with the site abutting the built up area boundary to the north. The SSL for Bidford-on-Avon covers a large area of land around all sides of the edge of the village. It is clear that certain parts of Bidford-on-Avon are more sensitive than others. Assessing the settlement edge as a whole does not allow for any distinction to be made between different areas for growth. It is difficult therefore to draw conclusions as to the appropriateness of the settlement to accommodate growth from this exercise alone. It is clear from Table 5.1 that the only major adverse impact identified for Bidford-on-Avon relate to agricultural land classification. Agricultural land classification will of course be a factor that needs to be taken into consideration, but is not an overriding constraint upon the development of a site. It is significant to note that Bidford-on-Avon is the only SSL where there is not a major adverse impact in relation to landscape. The SA demonstrates therefore that there are no in principle impediments to growth at Bidford-on-Avon and that it is considered as a suitable location for growth, with a good range of facilities available. The Councils will also be mindful that this is only one piece of evidence at a strategic level, and the HELAA and other evidence will need to inform the selection of allocations in due course.
Yes, growth of existing settlements in South Warwickshire is imperative to deliver the overall growth targets, and achieve the Vision and overarching principles. The need for housing, affordable and specialist housing, green infrastructure, improved facilities and infrastructure is within the towns and villages. Those needs are best met sustainably adjacent to the settlements. The following comments are made in respect of Rosconn Strategic Land interest; south of Avon Way, Bidford (Site 473) which falls within Area 1 within the Settlement Design Analysis. In respect of connectivity, the Area has been assessed as ‘D’. This is considered as having significant barriers that would be difficult to overcome. The commentary in the Settlement Analysis states that barriers to connectivity can only be overcome via the new development to the north of the site. There is an agreement in place with Persimmon Homes to access the Site via the development to the north known as Bidford Meadows. The necessary space has been reserved to ensure a suitable vehicular and pedestrian access from Salford Road through Bidford Meadows / Avon Way. The accompanying Transport Technical Note (Savoy Consulting, December 2020) demonstrates that the existing vehicular access onto Salford Road has sufficient capacity to accommodate traffic movements associated with both the existing Bidford Meadows development and the development of Land South of Salford Road. There is therefore no significant barrier to connectivity, and the site should be assessed as ‘A’ in the next iteration of the Analysis. In respect of Landforms, the Development Framework illustrates how the flood zones to the east and south can be avoided. In respect of local facilities within 800m, Area 1 scores very well with the site scoring 4 out of 5, only marked down for healthcare facilities. It should however be noted that Bidford-on-Avon Health Centre is outside of the village, and so the majority of sites are beyond 800m. Overall, Area 1 is therefore considered a suitable location to accommodate development as there are no barriers to connectivity to the village, no constraints, and the site is within 800m of a good range of local facilities. It should also be highlighted that the Stratford on Avon District Council scored the site (BID.13) positively within the SHLAA 2021 update. The assessment concluded that the site is well related to housing development to the north and that the impact of further development could be effectively mitigated. Land south of Avon Way is therefore considered to be capable of accommodating an appropriately designed residential development set within a robust GI framework as presented in the accompanying Development Framework Plan. The Development Framework Plan illustrates how a new landscape and planting belt can be established to the southern and eastern boundaries of the site which will both screen the proposed built-form and create long-term defensible boundaries to the surrounding countryside as well as delivering a significant area of new open space. A Supporting Landscape Statement (FPCR, October 2020) has been completed which demonstrates that the site benefits from a high degree of visual containment within existing landscape and built features. The adjacent built-up area to the north significantly influences the character of the site with views available of these modern residential properties. Small Brook, a well-vegetated watercourse, runs adjacent to the site's western boundary, with the site's eastern boundary being partially enclosed by an established tree line. Whilst open countryside lies to the south and south east, the accompanying Development Framework Plan demonstrates how a strong landscape framework can be achieved along these boundaries. Paragraph 141 of the NPPF states that before changes are made to Green Belt boundaries, the LPA will need to demonstrate that they have considered all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development. LPA’s must therefore demonstrate that they have made use of suitable and underutilised land before Green Belt land is released. Land south of Avon Way, Bidford on Avon, should therefore be given priority as this land is outside of the Green Belt and is considered to be a deliverable site to help deliver homes within the plan period.
The following comments are made in respect of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) for Kineton. The Small Settlement Location (SSLs) for Kineton does not include Rosconn Strategic Land interest north of Banbury Road, Kineton (Site 470). However, it includes land on the sites western and eastern boundaries, and therefore Site 470 falls between the SSL and the built-up area boundary. As Site 470 is available, this anomaly should be rectified in the next iteration of the SA. The SSL for Kineton covers a large area of land around all sides of the edge of the village. It is clear that certain parts of Kineton are more sensitive than others. For example, land to the south is more constrained by flood zones 2 and 3, and heritage assets. Assessing the settlement edge as a whole does not allow for any distinction to be made between different areas for growth. It is difficult therefore to draw conclusions as to the appropriateness of the settlement to accommodate growth from this exercise alone. It is clear from Table 5.1 that the only major adverse impacts identified for Kineton relate to landscape sensitivity, cultural heritage, and agricultural land classification. With respect to landscape sensitivity, site 470 lies within the least sensitive part of the settlement, within parcel ‘K05’ as identified in Stratford District Council’s Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (2012). Parcel K05 is identified as an area where the landscape sensitivity to housing development is considered ‘Medium’ whereas the rest of the settlement is more sensitive (‘High/Medium’ and ‘High’). Furthermore, as demonstrated in the accompanying Development Framework Plan, mitigation can be incorporated within the scheme to enhance the existing strong landscaped and hedgerow boundaries to the north and west. This will further reinforce the site’s visual containment and its clear alignment with the existing built up area. On the basis of the above, it is clear that landscape sensitivity to accommodate change will not be an overriding factor to future growth at Kineton, with the 2012 Landscape Sensitivity Assessment showing the areas of lower sensitivity. Agricultural land classification will of course be a factor that needs to be taken into consideration, but is not an overriding constraint upon the development of a site. In terms of Cultural Heritage, the SA states that the southern part of the village coincides with an area designated as a Registered Battlefield (Battlefield of Edgehill 1642) and that the impacts of this designation should be mitigated through the location and layout of future proposals. Proposals for land north of Banbury Road, which are illustrated in the accompanying Development Framework Plan demonstrate that the site is located north of the Registered Battlefield, with the site enclosed behind existing residential development along Banbury Road and Devereux Close. The heritage impacts can therefore be avoided through the location of the development. The SA demonstrates therefore that there are no in principle impediments to growth at Kineton and that it is considered as a suitable location for growth, with a good range of facilities available, specifically recognising the excellent location to Schools. The Councils will also be mindful that this is only one piece of evidence at a strategic level, and the HELAA and other evidence will need to inform the selection of allocations in due course.
Yes, growth of existing settlements in South Warwickshire is imperative to deliver the overall growth targets, and achieve the Vision and overarching principles. The need for housing, affordable and specialist housing, green infrastructure, improved facilities and infrastructure is within the towns and villages. Those needs are best met sustainably adjacent to the settlements. The following comments are made in respect of Rosconn Strategic Land Site (470) which falls within Area 7 within the Analysis. In respect of connectivity, the Area has been assessed as ‘C’ defined as barriers which may be overcome, but not easily. The commentary in the Settlement Analysis states that existing ribbon development limits access points to the brown route. However, the Development Framework Plan submitted with these representations demonstrates how access to Banbury Road can be achieved. As Banbury Road is capable of accommodating all modes of transport, there are no barriers to connectivity to the settlement and this should be rectified in the next iteration of the Analysis to a score of (A). In respect of landforms, there are no constraints on Area 7, and the site falls outside of Flood Zones 2 and 3, with large areas of Flood Zones 2 and 3 located south of Banbury Road. Therefore growth to the north of the village is supported in flood risk terms, with the area sequentially preferable under national planning policy. In respect of local facilities within 800m, Area 7 scores 5 out of 5 with the site being within 800m of retail and job opportunities, places to meet, open space and leisure, healthcare and finally education facilities. Area 7 is therefore considered a suitable location to accommodate development as there are no barriers to connectivity to the village, and the site is within 800m of a range of local facilities. It should also be highlighted that the Stratford on Avon District Council scored the site (KIN.08) positively within the SHLAA 2021 update. The assessment concluded that development on southern part of the site could be mitigated effectively through extensive landscaping along its northern boundary. Land north of Banbury Road is therefore considered to be capable of accommodating an appropriately designed residential development set within a robust GI framework as presented in the accompanying Development Framework Plan. Rosconn Strategic Land have therefore shown that the landscape impact can be mitigated effectively to ensure that the scheme can deliver well designed homes at this location. Paragraph 141 of the NPPF states that before changes are made to Green Belt boundaries, the LPA will need to demonstrate that they have considered all other reasonable options for meeting its identified need for development. LPA’s must therefore demonstrate that they have made use of suitable and underutilised land before Green Belt land is released. Land north of Banbury Road, Kineton, should therefore be given priority as this land is outside of the Green Belt and is considered to be a deliverable site to help deliver homes within the plan period.
The following comments are made in respect of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) for Long Itchington. The Small Settlement Location (SSLs) for Long Itchington partly includes Rosconn Strategic Land interest east of Marton Road, with the majority of the site congruous with the built up area boundary and the remainder within the SSL. The SSL for Long Itchington covers a large area of land around all sides of the edge of the village and partly overlaps the site. It is clear that certain parts of Long Itchington are more sensitive than others. For example, land to the west is more constrained by flood plain. Assessing the settlement edge as a whole does not allow for any distinction to be made between different areas for growth. It is difficult therefore to draw conclusions as to the appropriateness of the settlement to accommodate growth from this exercise alone. It is clear from Table 5.1 that the only major adverse impacts identified for Long Itchington relate to landscape sensitivity and agricultural land classification. With respect to landscape sensitivity, this site lies within the least sensitive part of the settlement, within parcel ‘LI03’ as identified in Stratford District Council’s Landscape Sensitivity Assessment (2012). LI03 adjoins other parcels (LI02 to the west and LI01 to the east) where the landscape sensitivity to housing development is considered ‘Medium’ whereas the rest of the settlement is more sensitive (‘High/Medium’ and ‘High’). This is further explained in the enclosed Landscape Statement (FPCR, October 2020). In landscape terms, the site aligns with the Council’s own decision-making in this part of Long Itchington, with it adjoining the Bloor Homes scheme at Bishop Drive where the landscape’s capacity to accommodate change was considered acceptable. Furthermore, as demonstrated in the enclosed Landscape Statement and shown on the Development Framework Plan, mitigation can be incorporated within the scheme to enhance the existing strong landscaped and hedgerow boundaries to the north, south and east. This will further reinforce the site’s visual containment and its clear alignment with the existing built up area. On the basis of the above, it is clear that landscape sensitivity to accommodate change will not be an overriding factor to future growth at Long Itchington, with the 2012 Landscape Sensitivity Assessment and subsequent Council decision-making showing the areas of lower sensitivity, including an area which includes this site. Agricultural land classification will of course be a factor that needs to be taken into consideration, but is not an overriding constraint upon the development of a site. 1The SA demonstrates therefore that there are no in principle impediments to growth at Long Itchington and that it is considered as a suitable location for growth, with a good range of facilities available. The Councils will also be mindful that this is only one piece of evidence at a strategic level, and the HELAA and other evidence will need to inform the selection of allocations in due course.
