Issue and Options 2023
Search form responses
Results for Hunningham Parish Council search
New searchWe believe that the Vision and Strategic Objectives should specifically state that: 'avoiding development on greenbelt land will be prioritised at all stages of the plan development'. This is not currently the situation with a heavy (unjustified) bias towards development in the greenbelt. Our reasoning for this is that the greenbelt in the local area has a vital importance in keeping land permanently open so protecting the environmental and cultural landscape, and preventing urban sprawl (especially creeping sprawl towards Coventry). Protection of the Green Belt will also assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. In our view the protection of greenbelt should be given higher priority.
We feel that the use of brownfield sites should be prioritised and that where brownfield development is not possible, then development should not occur in Greenbelt land. In particular, we do not feel that the “call for sites” approach sufficiently prioritises the identification of non-greenbelt brownfield over greenfield sites. These non-greenbelt brownfield sites should be actively sought out. We feel the consultation document is heavily biased towards development in the greenbelt north of Leamington and this should be avoided, especially when as much as 1/3 of the plan area is greenbelt. I feel that appropriately planned development from the outset will avoid the need for greenbelt development in “exceptional circumstances”. Greenbelt development must be avoided as an absolute priority.
Q-S4.1: Growth of existing settlements should only be considered where it does not require development in the greenbelt. Further growth of existing settlements in non-greenbelt locations should be encouraged and where necessary infrastructure should be improved to support this. Where growth of existing settlements cannot be secured without using greenbelt land, alternative solutions should be considered that do not involve development in greenbelt land, e.g. brownfield sites. Q-S8.1: We do not feel a threshold approach to small scale development is appropriate in greenbelt areas. We do not feel the plan should allow for more small scale growth developments to come forward in greenbelt areas. Q-S10: We are specifically opposed to development of land in the greenbelt areas around Hunningham and other similar small greenbelt villages due to the impact on the rural character of the area of the Leamington/Coventry Greenbelt. The Climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land. This is a weak and bizarre argument. Sustainable development is perfectly possible without developing on greenbelt land, which itself is truly harmful. There is no option to comment on issue S6 within the plan (a review of the greenbelt boundaries). We do not feel it is necessary or appropriate to redefine greenbelt boundaries. This issue should not have been included within the consultation without the option to comment. The number of respondents (561 responses) to the first consultation was exceptionally small and the views expressed can in no way be considered representative of the whole population of the area. The first consultation did not give details of potential areas for development so residents were unaware of the impact and did not therefore participate. It is likely, given these very small numbers, that many of the responses were from developers or landowners who would directly benefit from such development (there were almost as many sites submitted as responses received!). The views of this tiny number of respondents should not be used as a basis for decision making and should not be used to justify development or review of the greenbelt.
No answer given
Q-S5.2: We feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are no exceptional circumstances for doing so. It is unacceptable that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) principles are NOT being adhered to, as multiple new settlement locations, in greenbelt land, are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non-greenbelt site. Q-S5.3: We feel that the prioritisation of rail corridors may offer a sensible option for development. There is substantial scope to include development alongside rail corridors outside of the greenbelt. We feel development alongside rail corridors to the south of the region, explicitly avoiding greenbelt development, should be supported. The plan outlines that an indicative 6,000 new homes would be sufficient to support a new rail station, and there are ample geographical options to achieve this outside of the greenbelt. Additionally, this would reduce the likelihood of overcrowding existing stations. Development in north Leamington would increase traffic to and from Leamington station so contributing to the already heavy traffic congestion in the centre of the town. A new station in the greenbelt is unacceptable. The Climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land. This is a weak argument as there are other ways of mitigating against the climate emergency without developing on greenbelt.
In terms of land use area Warwickshire remains an agricultural county and all agricultural land should be protected from development. In particular, tenanted farmland, such as that held in the WCC Smallholdings estate should be preserved, as this provides a much-needed route for young farmers or other new entrants to start work in this nationally important industry, creating food security for the nation and county. This need for food security has been shown to be even more important in the post-Brexit era and the current Ukraine/Russia conflict.
We are concerned that new developments on or close to flood plains increase the risk of flooding further downstream. Maintain Maintenance of the floodplains of the River Leam will provide protection for Leamington Spa and other built areas further downstream. Proposals to develop large areas adjacent to Hunningham would increase this risk of flooding and require remediation elsewhere with increased carbon costs at the expense of an existing natural flood plain. If the proposal goes ahead, will the developer be willing to compensate home and business owners affected by such future flooding due to removal of this natural flood plain?
