Preferred Options 2025

Other

Representation ID: 104306

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: South Warwickshire Foundation trust

This site does not have close access to an existing community healthcare property and will therefore require more significant infrastructure investment to support sufficient provision of out of hospital services for any significant size of development.

No

Representation ID: 104312

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: South Warwickshire Foundation trust

As this development is on green belt land, we would not support this site as a priority for development, unless there were significant steps taken to avoid or mitigate any loss of biodiversity and carbon sequestration/climate change mitigation.

Yes

Representation ID: 104323

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: South Warwickshire Foundation trust

The broad approach is agreed with, however page 6 states ‘it should be noted a site’s location in the Green Belt would not necessarily be an outright constraint to development, should exceptional circumstances be demonstrated which justify releasing land from Green Belt’. These exceptional circumstances are not listed and full transparency should be given around these, particularly when one of the areas deemed as more suitable (B1, Land at Hatton) is located on green belt land.

Other

Representation ID: 104327

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: South Warwickshire Foundation trust

Additional restrictions should be placed in small scale developments in green belt locations, including only allowing these in previously built up areas.

Other

Representation ID: 104338

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: South Warwickshire Foundation trust

Given the scale of planned housing growth in the new standard model, we would be concerned about additional housing development above these figures given the sizeable growth in population planned and the impact on existing communities and services. There is a real risk that the existing services would be unable to cope with the population surge, for services which are already very challenged. SWFT would need to carefully consider any additional mitigations required to meet extended housing growth, for example an even stronger commitment to affordable and family housing to support local workforce growth to deliver increased demand for services.

Yes

Representation ID: 104353

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: South Warwickshire Foundation trust

We welcome the active engagement of all infrastructure providers on an overarching IDP, and would support the development of shared multi-functional spaces to bring communities and services together.

As a Trust our infrastructure needs are likely to require additional acute and community healthcare facilities in the coming years to meet the growth in demand. SWFT also require sufficient infrastructure contributions towards primary care so that demand can be managed in an appropriate setting.

We would seek to link the wording in this section with Draft policy Direction 30, and a commitment within the plan for defined financial S106 commitment.

Yes

Representation ID: 104360

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: South Warwickshire Foundation trust

We do agree that safeguarding space for future development of transport infrastructure is important, to ensure future accessibility of developments. This should include consideration of active travel infrastructure as well as public transport links and road infrastructure.

Other

Representation ID: 104364

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: South Warwickshire Foundation trust

There is no mention in the draft policy section on the value placed on biodiversity and how this plays a role in the prioritisation of the green belt areas to be developed.

We would want assurance for any of the “insetting” that is described for existing villages within Green Belt land, that this change would not have a detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing of the existing residents.

Other

Representation ID: 104368

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: South Warwickshire Foundation trust

We would seek assurance that development density will have due regard for both avoiding any exacerbation or creation of inequalities in the new and incoming populations, whilst also creating communities with good access to infrastructure, as well as minimising the footprint of new buildings.

Yes

Representation ID: 104370

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: South Warwickshire Foundation trust

We support the prioritisation of brownfield sites for development before other sites are considered. We also support the release and re-purposing of land unsuitable for development for other common uses to support development and empowerment of local communities.