Issue and Options 2023
Search form responses
Results for Beaudesert & Henley in Arden Joint Parish Council search
New searchWhilst the JPC and the community in Henley support much of the vision and of the objectives put forward, these are undermined by three aspects of the plan. The plan is regarded as unrealistically long given the rate of social and economic change. The plan also has no milestones and is not SMART so that it is not anchored in current reality The very wide scope presented with 16 separate categories and over 100 questions is complex and fragmented. An even more serious problem is that whilst in the infrastructure section there is a strong emphasis on delivering associated infrastructure, the separate elements are not integrated at all. The development options in the plan are not predicated on the delivery of the necessary infrastructure and rely almost entirely on private sector contributions. Development will only be acceptable to the community in Henley if infrastructure needs are identified and committed prior to development commencing. Community opinion in the Joint Parishes is unanimous on this. Third as the merger of Stratford and Warwick councils did not proceed then the relevance of having joint visions and strategies is significantly weakened. In later sections, the JPC response will indicate how some of these issues might be dealt with. One principle which could be adopted from the beginning and possibly added to the vision is that of subsidiarity. If this was adopted any policy decisions or detailed land allocation decisions would be taken at the most local level possible, and top-down policies kept to a minimum. There is no evidence in the vision or objectives of the document that such a principle has ever even been discussed. The JPC is in the process of finalising its NDP and is looking to review once the housing requirement is known in order to control future development from a neighbourhood perspective. We will ensure through the NDP that the minimum housing requirement is met (or exceeded) to meet the Local Plan requirements but of a type, design and in a location that is acceptable locally.
There should be a presumption against development on land liable to flooding.(see the Landform Analysis P.45) The SFRA highlights that Henley is one of the most sensitive areas in SDC to the fluvial impacts of climate change. There is a contradiction between the HSA and development plans for Henley. The assessment outlines the need for carefully considered development and not that Henley should absorb significant urban expansion as suggested in the Plan
Q-I.2: The JPC strongly supports option 12b.However without a significant change to the approach to funding infrastructure none of the options will be adequate. The JPC has carried out as much public consultation as practicable in the very limited time available. The local community in Henley and Beaudesert has expressed extreme concern about the inadequate infrastructure of the town. The community will oppose any growth option unless there is a realistic infrastructure investment plan The document correctly identifies that provision of the appropriate new infrastructure must underpin this plan in particular identifying the importance of effective communications, especially transport. The provision of adequate utility and Internet services is also deemed essential, as are the public services of health, education and welfare. There is nowhere in the document that outlines the way improvements in all of these things are to be undertaken. There is also no reference to obtaining funding commitments from statutory providers and the key private-sector agencies involved in public infrastructure/services guaranteeing the investment necessary. This is critical to areas like Henley in Arden/Beaudesert and the surrounding villages, which feature heavily in the growth priorities. It is incumbent on SWLP to make a statement as to how these facilities will be provided well in advance of site allocation and development commencing. It is disingenuous to maintain that the private sector will be able to fill this gap entirely, yet this seems to be the assumption throughout the plan. Q-I.3: The JPC supports 13b on the subsidiarity principle Q-I.5: The JPC has received views from 2-300 residents in the short time available. The community have made it clear that the infrastructure of Henley Beaudesert is seriously inadequate. There is anger about the quality of the road, rail and bus situation which has been wrongly identified as strengths of the town. There are several other serious concerns relating particularly to antiquated drainage and sewage systems and flood hazards. Unless the chosen option presents concrete proposals to deal with these issues in the early years of the plan none of the growth options will be acceptable. Other comments: The document correctly identifies that provision of the correct infrastructure must underpin this plan. The plan identifies the importance of effective communications, especially transport. The provision of adequate utility and Internet services is also deemed essential, as are the public services of health, education and welfare. There is nowhere in the document that outlines the way improvements in all of these things are to be undertaken. There is no indication that the authorities will be approaching the statutory providers and the private sector involved in public services to ensure that they will guarantee the investment necessary. This is obviously fundamental to historic places like Henley in Arden/Beaudesert and the surrounding villages, which might feature heavily in the growth priorities. It is essential that SWLP makes a statement as to how these facilities will be provided. Infrastructure needs to be delivered in advance of the development. It is ludicrous to pretend that the private sector will be able to fill this gap entirely, yet this seems to be the assumption behind the plan. There are many local and national examples that this is simply unrealistic. Recent battles in Alcester, Southam, Studley, and Wellesbourne are the tip of the iceberg of this problem. Without a significant change to the approach to funding infrastructure none of the options will be adequate
Q-S1: The JPC supports option S1a It is essential that the community has a role in identifying areas in the green belt and green spaces which are proposed to be released for development or retained in green corridors in order to represent its’ wishes in the determination of the SWLP Spatial Growth Strategy .Attention is drawn to the Levelling – up and Regeneration Bill: Reforms to National Planning Policy and the Governments’ intention to amend the NPPF Q-S5.2: Without a significant change to the approach to funding infrastructure none of the options will be adequate. The document correctly identifies that provision of the correct infrastructure must underpin this plan. The plan identifies the importance of effective communications, especially transport. The provision of adequate utility and Internet services is also deemed essential, as are the public services of health, education and welfare. And community facilities and open space? There is nowhere in the document that outlines the way improvements in all of these things are to be undertaken, and whether as part of the SWLP Part 2 the authorities will be approaching the statutory providers and the key private-sector agencies involved in public services to ensure that they will guarantee the investment necessary. This is obviously central to areas like Henley in Arden/Beaudesert and the surrounding villages, which feature heavily in the growth priorities. It is incumbent on SWLP to make a statement as to how these facilities will be provided. Infrastructure will need to be delivered in advance of the development It has happened elsewhere … It would be ludicrous to pretend that the private sector will be able to fill this gap entirely yet this seems to be the assumption behind the plan. Q-S5.3: The SWLP identifies connectivity/transport/communication as the single most important criterion in choosing preferred options. This is not reflected in the analysis within the body of the document. The quality of transport infrastructure is not given sufficient attention in the consultation document. Instead There should be a much more detailed analysis of the quality and usage the road system and rail and bus services in the subregion. No option can be chosen without an assessment of the quality of the services and if and how improvements in those services can be realigned under the growth proposals. The road structure in Henley and Beaudesert has not changed since the 1950’s yet no road proposals affecting Henley Beaudesert are included in the document. Nor is there any mention of necessary and vital improvements to the rail and bus services. This is a crucial omission which needs to be corrected before the preferred option is published. Dissatisfaction was abundantly clear with all aspects of road rail and bus services in responses to the JPC community consultation. Q-S8.1: Outside the settlements the Countryside Policy should prevail. Inside the settlements the size should be in accordance with the Neighbourhood Plan and appropriate to the nature of the specific sites Q-S8.2: Outside the settlements the Countryside Policy should prevail. Inside the settlements the size should be in accordance with the Neighbourhood Plan and appropriate to the nature of the specific sites Q-S10: The JPC has received views from 2-300 residents in the short time available. The community have made it clear that the infrastructure of Henley Beaudesert is seriously inadequate. There is anger about the quality of the road, rail and bus situation which have been wrongly identified as strengths of the town. There are several other serious concerns relating particularly to antiquated drainage and sewage systems and flood hazards. Unless the chosen option presents concrete proposals to deal with these issues in the early years of the plan none of the growth options will be acceptable. (repeat of paragraph SI.4.3)
