Issue and Options 2023
Search form responses
Results for Warwickshire Wildlife Trust search
New searchWe are concerned that the plan hasn’t considered local habitats and biodiversity in enough detail in their growth strategies, with a number of chosen growth areas directly adjacent to the important River Avon and River Leam and their tributaries. As well as a number of key Local Wildlife Sites. The Councils also urgently need to assess their ‘Potential Local Wildlife Sites’ to give them more weight, especially in the south as these should have full LWS status, and should be informing the growth strategy early on. The Wildlife Trust understands that growth needs to happen, and growth can still happen alongside nature preservation and recovery. The Growth options shouldn’t just look at housing, further sites and areas need to be allocated for nature recovery in order to meet the needed targets of 30% of land in nature recovery by 2030. We are particularly concerned that the ‘Dispersal option’ includes a number of large settlement actually in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), this isn’t considered a legally sound Option in line with the Sustainability Appraisal. The NPPF states ANOB should only be considered in exceptional circumstance and Para 76. States ‘the scale and extent of development within all these designated areas should be limited’. WWT is also concerned that NOT reviewing the green belt hasn’t been considered as a clear option, in line with Sustainability Appraisals requirements. This key designation retains open areas for wildlife, stops settlements joining and works with designations outside of S Warks. We are concerned that a number of important Local Wildlife Sites and Potential LWSs are located in the proposed growth areas, including a number of key SSSIs and the Nature Improvement Area and the following: Leamington- Warwick Racecourse Nursery Wood and Newbold Comyn LWS’s and the Grand Union Canal LWS. Southam- Long Itchington quarry, Bishops Hill and Bishops Bowl LWS, Ufton Hill Farm Fields PLWS NE- Thickthorn wood stoneypark wood NW- Hays wood River Alne, Coughton Park LWS South- River Stowe LWS West - River Arrow, Springs, Three Oakhill, The Belts Wood and Old Pack Woo LWS SW- Long Marston Disused Airfield and Doctors Farm LWS SE- DM Kineton, Bomb crater pool North- Henley Meadows LWS Dispersed method -includes Oversley Wood LWS amongst others All these known sites are key natural capital assets and should not be used for development. In addition new sites of habitat creation areas should be allocated to address the current low level of biodiversity. Regarding Flood risk, the Councils will need to carry out a detailed Flood risk assessment and land in the flood plain shouldn’t even be considered as a suitable ‘Options’ in line with the Sustainability Appraisal requirements.
Concerned that NOT reviewing the green belt hasn’t been considered as a clear option, in line with Sustainability Appraisals requirements. This key designation retains open areas for wildlife, stops settlements joining and works with designations outside of S Warks. With more people working from home, we also consider that other services rather than just the transport network should be included in the assessment. Greater weight should have also been given to impact on biodiversity and LWS’s and PLWSs.
The area shouldn’t choose to take more extra additional growth, this would put additional serious pressure on important habitats and environments in the area. The other Councils need to legitimately look to find land/ increase housing densities in their local areas.
No answer given
selected
selected
selected
Yes WWT supports the use of Climate change assessments, but the Council needs a clearer plan for actually delivering and monitoring in line with the climate change priories of COP27, the Governments Climate change strategy and in line with the declared Climate Change Emergencies in both Council areas.
