Preferred Options 2025
Search representations
Results for Adrian Summers on behalf of the Summers Family search
New searchNo
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 2 - Potential New Settlements?
Representation ID: 101095
Received: 07/03/2025
Respondent: Adrian Summers on behalf of the Summers Family
Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
We fail to understand why some of the specific new settlement locations have been chosen and how disconnected they are from the Call for Sites exercises. We would also question the integrity of inviting further Call for Sites submissions where none were previously submitted. Were prospective new settlements to be identified then they should have drawn on the Call for Sites results.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 3- Small Scale Development, Settlement Boundaries and Infill Development?
Representation ID: 101113
Received: 07/03/2025
Respondent: Adrian Summers on behalf of the Summers Family
Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
The plan should recognise the potential for smaller scale developments to fulfil a significant role in meeting future growth needs. This should be quantified and given as much importance as strategic allocations.
It is important to stress that the changes to the approach on Green Belt in the December 2024 version of the NPPF needs to be fully taken on-board, including the fact that the land at Claybank Farm (Site 517) can be considered as Grey Belt. This is likely to increase the number of non-strategic scale employment developments to come forward compared to hitherto.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 4- Accommodating Growth Needs Arising from Outside South Warwickshire?
Representation ID: 101120
Received: 07/03/2025
Respondent: Adrian Summers on behalf of the Summers Family
Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
There is a need for greater certainty and quantification on meeting cross-boundary needs. Also, this forgets that some of the requirement might be for employment development, as was verbally indicated by officers during the SWLP Online Event on 29/01/25. The site at Claybank Farm would be capable of accommodating a modest level of employment shortfall.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 5- Infrastructure Requirements and Delivery?
Representation ID: 101134
Received: 07/03/2025
Respondent: Adrian Summers on behalf of the Summers Family
Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
The consultation suggests, " the IDP will include an Infrastructure Delivery Schedule for each district. This IDP remains 'a live document' and the Local Planning Authorities will continue to work with infrastructure providers and other stakeholders to refine its contents up to submission of the Local Plan."
Our client considers there are some important points to make on this:
(1) this statement implies the critical technical work to justify the plan is not in place, and
(2) why should the IDP being 'live' only apply up to submission and not be continuous even post adoption?
Other
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 6- Safeguarding land for transport proposals?
Representation ID: 101164
Received: 07/03/2025
Respondent: Adrian Summers on behalf of the Summers Family
Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
There is concern this policy direction implies that transport infrastructure trumps all other infrastructure types with other types of infrastructure dealt with as after-thoughts.
If the pattern of development is over-reliant on strategic level growth that requires too many large-scale infrastructure projects to deliver it, then the scale of growth might be constrained.
Employment generating development at Claybank Farm can be achieved in the short term without major improvements to the transport network.
There is too high a focus given to transport considerations in the emerging plan and that this might unduly constrain economic growth.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 7- Green Belt?
Representation ID: 101187
Received: 07/03/2025
Respondent: Adrian Summers on behalf of the Summers Family
Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
The consultation has been overtaken by events with the advent of the "Grey Belt" in the December 2024 NPPF and should be rerun at a later date taking account of responses. A rerun would enable, for example, the currently missing detailed policy wording to be added.
Notwithstanding, it is clear that an analysis of the purposes of Green Belt for the land identified at Claybank Farm for potential development would not contribute strongly to purposes a), b) and d) of Green Belt, and thereby would appear to constitute “Grey Belt” land.
No
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 9 - Using Brownfield Land for Development?
Representation ID: 101196
Received: 07/03/2025
Respondent: Adrian Summers on behalf of the Summers Family
Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
Given that significant parts of the districts are rural in nature the proposed tiered approach to Brownfield Land disadvantages rurally located sites such as Claybank Farm, and fails to consider the implications of the “Grey Belt” factor.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
Do you broadly support the proposals in the Meeting South Warwickshire's Sustainable Development Requirements chapter? If you have any additional points to raise with regards to this chapter please include them here.
Representation ID: 101222
Received: 07/03/2025
Respondent: Adrian Summers on behalf of the Summers Family
Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
There is a need to focus on:
• the level of growth required - housing and employment
• how this should be accommodated, urban/ rural, small, medium and strategic level growth
• a single rather than 2-part plan
• identify and carry out settlement boundary reviews or to establish them where appropriate
• embrace the December 2024 NPPF update especially with regard to Green Belt and the development of Grey Belt sites such as site 517 at Claybank Farm
• embrace infrastructure ‘in the round’
• deploy development to help achieve 20-minute neighbourhoods in urban and rural areas alike
No
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction- 12-Locations for Employment Growth?
Representation ID: 101243
Received: 07/03/2025
Respondent: Adrian Summers on behalf of the Summers Family
Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
The Policy Direction lacks specificity, particularly with regard to non-strategic employment land requirements. The local plan is overly focussed on strategic allocations and large companies. Against this proposals for Claybank Farm have been ‘sifted out’ yet the Policy Direction seeks the identification of other employment development opportunities.
The local plan needs a reality check, whereby far more emphasis is placed on non-strategic sites and employers as well as SMEs. The potential for Claybank Farm to contribute to future economic growth have been overlooked in the local plan and its associated evidence base.
No
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction-13-Core Opportunity Area?
Representation ID: 101249
Received: 07/03/2025
Respondent: Adrian Summers on behalf of the Summers Family
Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd
The concept seeks to spatially link together a number of strategic locations that are not closely linked. This appears to be the case in an attempt to justify all of the strategic allocations. In reality the links between Warwick/Leamington, Kenilworth with Coventry are strong and meaningful but the attempt to link across from Gaydon to the Bidford area far less so. The Core opportunity Area should be reviewed.
