Issue and Options 2023

2.5.17 As noted above, more information is required on the locations that are being assessed as locations for new settlements to confirm their suitability. The assumptions about the capacity of sites promoted by landowners/developers should also be made clear in the evaluation of any location. This also applies to the locations for growth considered around settlements that are discussed in later sections of the SA (Sections 4, 5 and 6). Where locations are not being actively promoted, they should not be treated as reasonable alternatives unless it can be demonstrated that they are developable. Sites that do not meet the criteria in Annex 2 of the NPPF should not be treated as reasonable alternatives.

Yes

No answer given

2.6.1 It is noted that some smaller settlements have been considered as part of the technical work for some of the growth options but not Harbury. 2.6.2 The spatial strategy options considered are: 1 - Rail corridors 2 - Sustainable travel (rail and bus) 3 - Economy 4 - Sustainable Travel and Economy (hybrid of the new 2 and 3) 5 - Dispersed 2.6.3 Having refined the spatial growth options, the Councils then identified settlements for consideration under selected spatial strategy options. Settlements for initial assessment were identified by the Councils on the basis that they fell within the first or second tiersettlements within either the Stratford on Avon District Core Strategy (‘Main Town’ and ‘Main Rural Centres’) or the Warwick District Local Plan (‘Urban Areas’ or ‘Growth Villages’) and are relevant to more than one of the refined spatial options identified by the Councils. 2.6.4 A key stage in developing a truly joint Local Plan that achieves consistency of approach across South Warwickshire (a key aim of preparing a joint local plan) would have been to revisit the classification of settlements across both districts using a common set of criteria. Given the desire to achieve consistency of approach across the area it is suggested that the update to the evidence base includes a review of the settlement hierarchy across both districts to see if/how they align and to address any inconsistencies. 2.6.5 Harbury, with a population of 2,420 (2011 census) is of equivalent size to some of the settlements that are included in the I&O document) and is considerably larger than others, for example Bearley (population of 724 as of 2011). Harbury is well located in relation to Leamington/Warwick and the Core Opportunity Area for employment that is identified in the I&O document. It has a good range of services and reasonable public transport links with scope for enhancement. Harbury could contribute to growth under either Option 2 or4 for example. 2.6.6 Paragraph 69 of the NPPF also notes that: “Small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area, and are often built-out relatively quickly.” 2.6.7 Growth of existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy (S4.1). Harbury should be considered in future updates to the evidence base as a location that could contribute to growth associated with options 2 and 4.

No

Nothing chosen

Threshold approach (S8.1, S8.2) 2.6.8 Site capacity should be optimised, rather than artificially capped. The scale of development should reflect other factors, including its size, location and development potential – reflecting its relationship to the existing settlement, topography, heritage, ecology, flood risk etc.

selected

selected

Settlement boundaries (S9a and S9b) 2.6.9 Where a site is considered strategic, the SWLP should amend the settlement boundary, rather than relying on LP2s or NDPs, which could lead to delays in sites coming forward and development being delivered in a timely way to meet need. Any allocation would also need to be suitably developed to demonstrate that it is deliverable/developable. 2.6.10 Question S9b asks if the SWLP should review which settlements have boundaries defined and which do not, as well as the extent of any such boundaries. We suggest that this exercise is undertaken as part of an overall review of the approach to the classification of settlements to achieve a consistent approach between the two districts. A consistent and suitably evidenced settlement hierarchy is an essential element of a Joint Plan.

The development distribution strategy for South Warwickshire (S10) 2.6.11 As noted elsewhere in this response, the distribution strategy should include consideration of the role of other settlements. As currently proposed, the Part 1 plan is effectively the core strategy with the Part 2 plan allocating non-strategic sites. 2.6.12 The Part 1 plan needs to set the strategic context for such allocations. The settlement hierarchy from the adopted local plans have simply been rolled forward – these should be reviewed to see if they still reflect the position of settlements within the hierarchy or their ability to grow and become more sustainable plus, as it is a joint plan, to ensure consistency of approach between both districts.

selected

selected

selected

selected

selected

selected