Issue and Options 2023

No

There is a fundamental flaw in the approach that has been taken so far. This means that the Part 1 plan is built on a false premise which assumes that Green Belt development is necessary. This premise is false because: (i) It is not in line with current Government policy. (ii) It is not based on a realistic and current assessment of housing need. (iii) The evidence generated to support the premise is derived from desktop studies which do not reflect local realities or the value placed on an area by a local community. (iv) It uses data from the part 1 consultation in a misleading way to suggest local support for Green Belt development. (v) It fails to recognise and value the contribution of Green Belt land. (vi) It fails to recognise and value the contribution of high quality agricultural land at a time of food insecurity. (vii) It gives no visibility or weight to options which would avoid Green Belt development. To reiterate our response to Q-V3.2 we believe that the SWLP planning process should be halted while the background and options are revisited in light of the national policy direction on the Green Belt.

No

Don't know

Following the impact of the pandemic on working patterns and commuting, including the large increase in the numbers of people who are now working from home, the future of rail travel seems to be very unclear at the moment. The scaling back of HS2, the under-usage of Kenilworth Station, and lower passenger numbers generally on Chiltern Railways suggests that this should be given careful consideration before shaping a whole strategy. An approach should be adopted that safeguards the Green Belt from further loss while expanding those settlements where land is available with good transport links and which have a range of existing services which can be expanded as needed e.g. retail, education, and health. None of the five strategic growth approaches do this.

Specifically in response to QI2: Government uses three separate approaches to the provision of the infrastructure needed for development. Without changes in national policies no single approach is possible. A better solution would involve the government leading on the provision of basic infrastructure. More generally: The level of growth and development proposed will have to be accompanied by a clear-eyed analysis of all infrastructure requirements, along with a funded commitment to implementing them fully. Ideally this should include all scales and types of locations to ensure a unified approach across the area. It should also recognise that there will be generalised ‘spillover’ from growth in particular locations. One important example is the impact of expanded settlements on traffic flow more broadly across the area. Over recent decades the addition of new housing on the edges of Leamington Spa and Warwick has led to increasing traffic congestion both on the north/south and east/west routes. The layout of the towns, (roads, railway lines, rivers, the canal and Warwick park) prevent the construction of any new through routes. The existing cycling infrastructure does not provide easy and safe cross town routes either. Further new housing and other development on the outskirts of the towns will further exacerbate this problem. The alternative is to focus on expanding existing small and larger settlements without the historical constraints faced by more new housing to the edges of the two towns.

We responded NO to Q-S4.1 however we would support the development of brownfield sites within existing settlements, for example through infilling, converting existing properties and changing use from commercial and or retail to housing. All can increase the number of housing units without building on greenfield sites.

We responded NO to Q-S4.1 however we would support the development of brownfield sites within existing settlements, for example through infilling, converting existing properties and changing use from commercial and or retail to housing. All can increase the number of housing units without building on greenfield sites.

With regard to new settlements more generally, we have responded NO to Q-S5.2 because we think the process for selecting these sites has been flawed - please see the concerns we raise elsewhere in our response, in particular our answer to Q-V3.2.