Issue and Options 2023
Search form responses
Results for William Davis Limited search
New search2.26. The Urban Capacity Study identifies a potential baseline housing supply for the 2025-2050 plan period of 19,950 dwellings. Of this, 6,145 dwellings would be located within existing urban areas and the remainder located elsewhere (including new settlements). 2.27. The conclusion drawn at Section 4.6 of the Urban Capacity Study confirms that greenfield land must be released to meet South Warwickshire’s housing needs and states that: “However, whilst the measures considered through this study could allow the SWLP to get a reasonable way towards meeting housing needs through urban sites and existing commitments, we consider it impossible to meet development needs without significant greenfield development.” (Section 4.6, Page 37, own emphasis) 2.28. While the study indicates that the shortfall between urban and existing committed housing capacity could be reduced by undertaking development on public car parks around South Warwickshire, this would seem highly unlikely given the significant programme of intervention and management that would be required for such capacity to be realised. The Respondent would also anticipate the likely yield from such sites to be considerably less than 3,400 dwellings and more likely towards the lower end of the range indicated (800 dwellings). 2.29. In the Respondent’s view, the inevitably of significant greenfield land being required adds considerably to the case for Green Belt release given that it is within the Green Belt that development can be most sustainably located. 2.30. It is agreed that to allow choice and competition in the market in accordance with National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) a buffer should be applied to the housing need as suggested in the UCS (UCS, Paragraph 4.6). The Local Plans Expert Group (LPEG) recommends a 20% buffer.
Q-S3.2: Please select the option which is most appropriate for South Warwickshire Option S3.2a: Prioritise brownfield development only when it corresponds with the identified growth strategy, or if it can be proven that the development is in a sustainable location or would increase the sustainability of the area. 2.31. While the Respondent recognises the importance of re-using Brownfield land, having considered the options presented in the Consultation Document, Option S3.2a is considered most appropriate in South Warwickshire, with Brownfield sites prioritised only where they are sustainably located and in line with the identified growth strategy. To do otherwise could result in unsustainable patterns of development that would conflict with the overarching vision and strategic objectives of the plan.
2.34. The Respondent would largely agree with the conclusions drawn in the Settlement Analysis. The Respondent’s site is indicated as having good connectivity with the village of Hampton Magna, which the Respondent would support. Read alongside the Heritage Assessment and considering that land to the west of the village poses no risk of coalescence with the urban area of Warwick the Respondent’s site at Old Budbrooke Road is considered the best option for growth at the village.
Q-S4.1: Do you think that growth of some of our existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy? Y/N/DK 2.32. Yes. The Respondent agrees that growth of existing settlements should be part of the overall growth strategy for South Warwickshire. As opposed to new settlements, sustainable development at existing settlements has the benefit of being delivered without significant infrastructure investment and within a much shorter time frame. 2.33. Turning to Hampton Magna, the Respondent’s site off Old Budbrooke Road represents a logical extension to the village that is immediately available by a housebuilder and capable of being developed without technical impediment. There is capacity within the local primary school and its development would assist in supporting existing facilities to the benefit of the vitality of Hampton Magna in accordance with Paragraph 79 of the NPPF.
Q-S5.2: Do you think new settlements should be part of the overall strategy? Y/N/DK 2.35. Broadly yes. The Respondent is generally supportive of the inclusion of new settlements in the overall growth strategy as they can be an effective way, at least in theory, of delivering new housing where there are barriers to the sustainable delivery of sufficient housing elsewhere. However, in reality, the physical implementation of new settlements is often complex and costly, which can significantly hamper their delivery. The Respondent would therefore caution against over reliance on new settlements in the preferred growth strategy. 2.36. Where new settlements are proposed the infrastructure requirements should be identified and robustly costed to ensure that delivery is viable. The Councils should also take a conservative approach regarding assumed capacity and likely build-out rates and avoid including housing completions from new settlements too early in the plan period. The Lichfield’s Start to Finish (Second Edition) 2020 report may be a helpful starting point in this regard, although any assumptions that are made will need to be fully evidenced having regard to site specific constraints and circumstances. 2.37. To improve choice and competition and help to mitigate the risk and implications of such sites not coming forward within the timescales envisaged it is recommended that a buffer is applied to the housing need, with a greater number of small-medium sites allocated at sustainable settlements to ensure adequate housing delivery in the short-medium term. The Local Plans Expert Group (LPEG) recommends a 20% buffer. Q-S5.3: In response to the climate change emergencies, we are looking at rail corridors as a preferred approach to identifying potential locations. Do you agree? Y/N/DK 2.38. Yes. The Respondent considers it sensible to look to rail corridors as a preferred approach to the identification of potential locations. However, given the problems and delays that can often occur with the provision of new rail services and stations, it is considered that the intensification of existing rail services should be considered before new ones. The Respondent’s site to the west of Hampton Magna is an ideal candidate for future housing development in this context given its location within walking distance of Warwick Parkway Rail Station.
Q-S7.2: For each growth option, please indicate whether you feel it is an appropriate strategy for South Warwickshire: 2.39. Hampton Magna is included as a potential location for growth under all five growth options, of which the Respondent is supportive. A site-specific representation in favour of the allocation of additional housing development at Land off Old Budbrooke Road, Hampton Magna is set out under Section 3.0 of this Statement. 2.40. Given the emphasis on mitigating the impacts of climate change and reducing the need to travel in order to reduce carbon emissions, it is the Respondent’s view that settlements such as Hampton Magna, which have a good range of services and are located in close proximity to existing railway services, should be retained as a location for growth under all options. 2.41. Considering the evidence base prepared to date, the Respondent would agree that Option 2 (Rail and Bus Corridors) would appear to align best with the overall objective of mitigating the impacts of climate change and, on balance, considers this to be the most appropriate option for South Warwickshire. However, in the interests of maintaining the vitality of existing settlements there is also considered to be merit in Option 5 as a hybrid approach. 2.42. As recognised in the Consultation Document, existing settlements within the Green Belt (such as Hampton Magna) are some of the most connected of all the settlements within South Warwickshire. Considering the magnitude of the housing need and the need to deliver a significant proportion of this on greenfield sites (as confirmed in the Urban Capacity Study) then it is considered inevitable that there will be a need for Green Belt release. The alternative being to limit growth to locations outside existing Green Belt designations, which would unlikely deliver the most sustainable or climate friendly option since it would push development away from areas with the best infrastructure and opportunities for access. To this end, the Respondent agrees that a review of the Green Belt across South Warwickshire will be an essential piece of evidence.
Q-S8.1: For settlements falling outside the chosen growth strategy, do you think a threshold approach is appropriate, to allow more small-scale developments to come forward? Y/N/DK 2.43. No. The sustainability of settlements falling outside of the chosen growth strategy will vary to a significant degree and should not therefore be treated as equal. In the Respondent’s view, a comprehensive settlement audit should be undertaken for those settlements that fall outside the identified growth strategy in order to better understand their functionality and relative sustainability. The results of which can then be used to inform an appropriate distribution strategy across these settlements in a less arbitrary and more transparent way. To do otherwise could put at risk the vitality of such settlements in conflict with Paragraph 79 of the NPPF.
