Issue and Options 2023
Search form responses
Results for Summers Holdings Ltd search
New searchQ-S5.3: The term corridor for rail is a little confusing given the distance between stations. It might be more relevant in describing a bus-based corridor where stops are much more frequent. Q-S5.4: Given limitations over capacity, frequency and level of service on the rail network it is probably misplaced to use the rail network as the ‘predominant’ rationale behind the locational strategy, but that public transport should be one of several factors used to steer the locational strategy. This point is of heightened significance post Covid context, where working from home is far more prevalent and, where road transport is required to become carbon free in the foreseeable future. This suggests that greater importance in decisions on the locational framework should relate to quality-of-life considerations. These would tend to favour more development taking place in smaller developments dispersed across the plan area. The existing pattern of development would continue maintain the health of the main existing settlements where regeneration activities would need to be concentrated. A dispersed pattern of development would help to sustain and enhance existing services across the plan area and, could help to improve bus services in those areas that do not have immediate access to rail services.
The emissions analysis is high level and shows relatively little difference between the alternatives. In a context where we should be carbon-zero by 2050 it should be afforded relatively little weight. Assuming mitigation could be put in-place under each of the options then other considerations should have greater weight.
The levels of employment land requirements appear somewhat mismatched with the distribution of population implying that the supply of land is a significant driver to the level of ‘need’ or requirement identified. This supply-led approach also appears to place a significant degree of support to the provision of larger strategic sites. The 5 options all identify potential locations for 11 strategic employment sites that would collectively meet the 345 ha ‘need’. It is important that the plan should identify opportunities across the piece including smaller and sites of differing quality so that the needs of businesses of all types can be accommodated. Of particular concern must be the provision of sites and buildings that provide opportunities for entrepreneurial activities to encourage start-up and grow on space. In terms of distribution, there would appear to be a need for additional provision in the Warwick part of the plan area
Q-E2: We are not convinced such a policy or policies is required. Many of the principles included under Option E2a are likely to be addressed by national policies or other policies in the local plan. The notes as drafted would not, as an example, encourage repatriation of manufacturing. Q-E3: Option E3a: Include a policy expanding on SDC’s current existing policy. This sets out the principles for economic activity within South Warwickshire and would also include setting out how much employment provision would need to be provided. This approach would be preferable to E3b. It should emphasise the importance of providing a choice of opportunities (in terms of both land or buildings) for all types and size of business available throughout the plan period. Option E3c: Include a policy that secures employment strategies through S106. This approach would be supported in appropriate circumstances. Q-E4.2: Option E4.2a: Include a policy supporting small-scale employment opportunities in rural areas We would support this approach which is conducive to helping entrepreneurs who may reside in the more rural parts of the plan area to establish new businesses and encourage existing small businesses to expand. To do the counter could seriously and negatively impact on the future long-term health of Warwickshire’s economy. Q-E5: Option E5a: Include a policy which supports a range of business units. We would strongly support this approach as providing an example of rural diversification with opportunity for many small diverse businesses including startups, some of which are ripe to expand into larger accommodation which could be provided onto adjacent land already in the ownership of the business park. Option E5b: Do not include a policy in Part 1. A failure to provide a policy in Part 1 would represent an ‘opportunity lost’. It is important that the local plan is seen to a plan that supports all types and sizes of business and not biased in favour of big business. It should also be remembered that some of the big businesses of the future will be the small businesses and start-ups of today. It is important that home-grown talent is supported with just as much vigour as large-scale footloose activity. Q-E6: Option E6a: Include a policy which protects South Warwickshire’s economic assets. We would generally support this approach although the list also includes assets outside the plan area. Perhaps it should be clear what is within the plan area. Q-E7.1: Option E7.1a: Include a policy directing employment to the Core Opportunity Area. This would require greater justification. It would appear to be a policy mechanism to justify large-scale employment sites in otherwise relatively remote areas. If retained, would there be a requirement to balance new employment and housing growth. Option E7.1b: Do not include a policy directing employment to the Core Opportunity Area. Without significantly greater justification it might be this would be a more sensible way forward. Q-E7.2: Option E7.2a: Include a policy relating to additional economic growth at the major investment sites. This might be an appropriate approach but as highlighted above it is important the plan is not unduly focused on major sites and inward investment. It is unclear if this means additional land allocations over existing commitments. If so, these would need to be justified. Option E7.2b: Do not include a policy relating to additional economic growth at the major investment sites. This question appears to highlight the focus of the approach in the plan towards the strategic sites. Why would growing local businesses prefer to locate at a strategic site? The rationale for this is unclear as we believe that smaller hubs are more conducive to business growth and creativity. Q-E10: Tourism is an important part of the economy. The plan should allow for development of the necessary supporting infrastructure to support its enhancement.
selected
selected
selected
selected
selected
selected
selected
selected
selected
selected
selected
selected
