Issue and Options 2023

Search form responses

Results for Bishops Itchington Parish Council search

Form ID: 84720

Respondent: Bishops Itchington Parish Council

Option I3a: Establish a South Warwickshire CIL (or emerging new Infrastructure Levy) to support the delivery of the Plan

selected

Option I3b: Each District Council to produce its own Levy

selected

Form ID: 84721

Respondent: Bishops Itchington Parish Council

Q-S5.2: Do you think new settlements should be part of the overall strategy?

Q-S5.3: In response to the climate change emergencies, we are looking at rail corridors as a preferred approach to identifying potential locations. Do you agree?

Nothing chosen

Q-S5.4: If not, what approach would you take?

No answer given

Form ID: 84722

Respondent: Bishops Itchington Parish Council

Option 1: Rail Corridors

Inappropriate strategy

Option 2: Sustainable Travel

Neutral

Option 3: Economy

Neutral

Option 4: Sustainable Travel and Economy

Appropriate strategy

Option 5: Dispersed

Neutral

Form ID: 84723

Respondent: Bishops Itchington Parish Council

Option E2a: Include a policy which encourages businesses to be low carbon

selected

Option E2b: Do not include a policy encouraging businesses to be low carbon

selected

Option E2c: Include a policy which looks to identify sites or development zones which are targeted at businesses wishing to be innovative towards a low carbon economy.

selected

Form ID: 84724

Respondent: Bishops Itchington Parish Council

Option E4.1a: Include a policy supporting diversification

selected

Option E4.1b: Do not include a specific policy on diversification

selected

Option E4.2a: Include a policy supporting small-scale employment opportunities in rural areas

selected

Option E4.2b: Do not include a policy supporting small-scale employment opportunities in rural areas

selected

Form ID: 84725

Respondent: Bishops Itchington Parish Council

Q-H2-1: What is the best way to significantly increase the supply of affordable housing across South Warwickshire?

Option H2-2c: A more localised approach with separate affordable housing requirements for different localities across South Warwickshire Affordable housing requirements should be determined to suit the needs of the regions and the aspirations of the people wishing to move into those regions, however measures will be required to ensure that there are no deliberate manipulations to ‘fudge the system’. The consideration of it being more difficult for developers to anticipate their costs is the developer’s problem.

Option H2-2a: A single South Warwickshire wide affordable housing requirement

selected

Option H2-2b: Separate affordable housing requirements for Stratford-on-Avon and Warwick Districts

selected

Option H2-2c: A more localised approach with separate affordable housing requirements for different localities across South Warwickshire

selected

Q-H2-3: How should South Warwickshire best address the specialist needs for older people?

No answer given

Form ID: 84726

Respondent: Bishops Itchington Parish Council

Q-H4-1: Do you agree with the approach of contributing to meeting the Birmingham and Black Country HMA shortfall to 2031 on the identified sites in Stratford-on-Avon District?

Q-H4-2: Please add any comments you wish to make about the scale of the shortfall from the Birmingham and Black Country HMA that South Warwickshire should accommodate within the South Warwickshire Local Plan

No answer given

Q-H4-3: If we are required to meet housing shortfalls from outside of South Warwickshire, how best and where should we accommodate such shortfalls?

No answer given

Form ID: 84727

Respondent: Bishops Itchington Parish Council

Q-B8.1: Do you agree that the plan should include a policy avoiding development on the best and most versatile agricultural land, unless it can be demonstrated that the harm to agricultural land is clearly outweighed by the benefit of development?

Yes

Q-B8.2: When considering climate change, biodiversity and economic wellbeing, are there any rural land uses or locations that should be prioritised over others?

No answer given

Form ID: 84728

Respondent: Bishops Itchington Parish Council

Q-B9: Should the plan include a policy requiring the safeguarding of sites of national importance, sites of local importance, and other non-designated sites known to make a positive contribution to biodiversity or geodiversity; unless the benefits of the proposal clearly outweigh the need to protect the site. Where possible conserve and enhance these sites.

Yes

Q-B10: Please add any comments you wish to make about a biodiverse and environmentally resilient South Warwickshire

No answer given

Form ID: 84729

Respondent: Bishops Itchington Parish Council

Q-S10: Please add any comments you wish to make about the development distribution strategy for South Warwickshire

The parish council would also like to make several comments/observations: • The justification given in some cases for the blanket approach was that it would make it easier and more predictable for developers. Our view is that this policy document should be in the interests of the people living in those regions, not the developers, • Where is the proof that South Warwickshire require the number of houses quoted including affordable housing? Exactly how many affordable houses are required and where? • It is surprising that ‘Heritage’ is absent from part one of the plan so it is assumed it will be in part 2, particularly in that Warwick District Council (WDC) has so many listed building, designated heritage assets, and conservation areas, • ‘2017, Warwickshire District Council Local Plan identified which polices were considered strategic. 2016 Stratford District Council Core Strategy did not’ – the two district councils are like ‘chalk and cheese’ regarding strategic strategies. There appears to be no hard and fast definition as to what constitutes strategic policy and we feel there should be one, • Page 178 of the document, it is where the two sets of planning policies from the Core Strategy and the Local Plan are listed, and this is where CS8 is ‘Historic Environment – some elements are within part one’: they are not included at all. Even the main regional centres AS1, AS2, AS3 etc. Are all saved for part two and this is worrying. The reality of asking people to merge into one local plan two separate LPA’s that are so far different particularly in their planning policies. At the moment, Warwickshire District Council’s local plan seems to be taking precedence in part one. Disparity between the two and a concern that the approach that Warwick takes has been given greater weight and significance, • Green belt. WDC has an excessive amount of green belt which they protect rigorously and there is also confusion generated between something being washed over by the greenbelt as opposed to being actually in the greenbelt. SDC has very little green belt and it is located in the northwest were it bounds the West Midlands and a small amount by Snitterfield and the north side of Stratford itself. The view that SDC will have about green belt will be completely different to that of WDC which re-emphasises the disparity/incompatibility, • Built Up Area Boundaries (BUAB) is concerning as there is a proposal about changing these. If you are going to preserve a community which is of a manageable sustainable size, there is no logic in changing the boundaries. A change in BUAB would affect all the villages.

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.