Issue and Options 2023
Search form responses
Results for Long Compton Parish Council search
New searchSummary for Long Compton Parish Council Consideration Part 1 of the new plan is concerned with Strategic Objectives, Growth Strategy and Strategic Policies. Part 2 will deal with detailed policies and will contain the NDPs which will be expected to comply with Part 1. Importantly, the “vision for places” component has been removed from Part 1 and will now be addressed in Part 2 and the NDPs. This is to be welcomed. Based on there assessment criteria, there is no clear winner but there is a clear loser – Dispersed which is marked worse for most things than the others. It has to be possible that this will now be dropped from further analysis and we should encourage this. Even if “Dispersed” is dropped, we would still be expected to accept infills within the boundaries and “windfalls”. Also worth noting that they are still working through the responses to the call for sites (in which our usual suspects put themselves forward) and have gone out with a second call – so who knows what might come of that). The main bit is however about the “Core Economic Opportunity Area” – the corridor from Stratford to Kenilworth via Warwick – which underlines the expectation that most development will be in the north. They deal with the expectation of need for new homes. The WDC/SDC combined area has gone up from requiring 1080 new homes per annum (based on ONS work in 2014) to 1679 (based on 2021 census trends). This is a huge increase and will clearly mean that some difficult decisions will need to be made – most difficult I think will be that quite a lot of green belt land will need to be made available for development (this is all in the north and precisely where the rail/bus/economic model suggests we need new houses). They have however put a lot more thought than SDC ever did into affordability and size. For example, they estimate that of our 1679 new builds, 1386 of them need to be affordable. Quite how they’ll manage this is beyond me! Custombuild remains on the agenda. As does Gypsy/traveller sites – both WDC and SDC failed to meet their plans for progress on these and they will need to do something. We are invited to say whether we want to retain the SDC criteria for selecting sites – we do. There’s some good stuff on climate resilience and zero carbon but nothing controversial. This does however include flooding and water management issues (where there is a recognition of surface water flooding risk). There is however nothing here or elsewhere on waste water management issues which we should I think point out. There is a good general intention to protect and enhance the land and buildings of S Warks. Importantly they have decided not to go for a “design code” at the strategic level but to leave it to Part 2 and the NDPs. This is a good thing and we should welcome it. The section on a “healthy, safe and inclusive S Warks” is good motherhood and apple pie stuff but we might want to ensure that this doesn’t evolve into street lighting and overturning dark skies policies. We might also point out that, in rural areas, a big factor is speeding and that the plan might address this. They talk about a well connected S Warks at length before conceding that rural areas aren’t well connected at all either by public transport or by wifi. I think we need to say that, at the strategic level, and given the plan is supposed to run till 2050, this needs to be addressed with some reasonable targets relating to bus services and connectivity. The last section is about a biodiverse and environmentally resilient S Warks. Here there is a biggish chunk on the Cotswold AONB with commitments to protect and comply with the AONB Management Plan (and the NPPF). There is also a tiny bit on dark skies. We should, obviously support this. Generally, this section is strong and will be important to us as we try to protect our important habitats. The one thing really notable for its absence is “enforcement”. We are going to have a lot of new and quite challenging policies flowing from this work and a load of planners will be doing their best to make sure they are implemented. But there is literally no point in any of them if we don’t have much stronger enforcement arms in the Districts. We should I think say this. Lastly, the list of strategic objectives gives us a good checklist to compare with our existing NDP. If we are not addressing one or more of these (or at least explaining why not) we will be risking providing very clear evidence that our Plan is out of date.
There is quite a large section on the Economy in which the rural economy gets a mention. We should encourage them to keep thinking about this. The main bit is however about the “Core Economic Opportunity Area” – the corridor from Stratford to Kenilworth via Warwick – which underlines the expectation that most development will be in the north.
There’s some good stuff on climate resilience and zero carbon but nothing controversial. This does however include flooding and water management issues (where there is a recognition of surface water flooding risk). There is however nothing here or elsewhere on waste water management issues which we should I think point out.
The section on a “healthy, safe and inclusive S Warks” is good motherhood and apple pie stuff but we might want to ensure that this doesn’t evolve into street lighting and overturning dark skies policies. We might also point out that, in rural areas, a big factor is speeding and that the plan might address this.
No answer given
They talk about a well connected S Warks at length before conceding that rural areas aren’t well connected at all either by public transport or by wifi. I think we need to say that, at the strategic level, and given the plan is supposed to run till 2050, this needs to be addressed with some reasonable targets relating to bus services and connectivity.
The last section is about a biodiverse and environmentally resilient S Warks. Here there is a biggish chunk on the Cotswold AONB with commitments to protect and comply with the AONB Management Plan (and the NPPF). There is also a tiny bit on dark skies. We should, obviously support this. Generally, this section is strong and will be important to us as we try to protect our important habitats.
