Bowls Club current ownership (i.e. to the SW of the B4100) should also be noted, so that the context of the additional 100ha can be understood. 2.5 - Planning Policy Context Consultee Comments Response Warwickshire and West Mercia Police WP/WMP welcome the inclusion of police facilities within the proposed community hub. Coventry and Warwickshire LEP Whilst the GLHSPD is supported by CWLEP, it is considered that the document could be enhanced as follows: Direct reference to the strategic alignment of the proposed development at Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath with the SEP. This is recommended to be incorporated at section 2.5 of the GLHSPD - Planning Policy Context. Noted. Text has been added at Section 1.1. Chesterton and Kingston Parish Meeting The content of Page 11 is exemplary of the brochure produced by the developer for the GLH exhibition at Lighthorne School on 27/28 February. It is full of ifs, but and maybes, with nothing certain, explicit or definitive on housing, the village centre, schooling support, green infrastructure, pedestrian & cycle networks, bus services. This is pure marketing speak full of promises, but how, when, where and what will be delivered is totally unclear. Noted. Infrastructure delivery expectations are set out in the revised Section 6. Warwick District Council It should be noted that any forthcoming Developer Contributions SPD should include a reference to Strategic Highway contributions being required beyond the boundary of Stratford District in instances where it can be demonstrated that additional traffic pressure requires highway/junction improvements attributable to development within Stratford District (i.e. GLH putting additional pressure on the highway network within Warwick District). … Paragraph starting ‘The phased delivery’ should read - the phased delivery of highway and transport infrastructure as set out in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan including further specific schemes that may be as necessary to mitigate local impacts both within Stratford District and, where proven, in neighbouring Agreed. This is acknowledged in Section 3.4 of the SPD. This text is copied from the Core Strategy and any changes would first have to be addressed in that document.
3.6 - Ecology Consultee Comments Response Warwickshire County Council - Planning and Development a) The reference to greater horseshoe bats in the paragraph should be altered to a species more relevant to Warwickshire, for example lesser horseshoe. b) The County Councils Ecology Service has conducted surveys on the presence of great crested newt surveys as part of the road re-alignment of the motorway junction 12. The survey the presence of great crested newt in the large pond at the end of the track adjacent to the water facility to the south of the application area. The report on findings can be made available on request. c) The council supports the objective for a net biodiversity gain objective. d) The council encourages the opportunity to create a substantial land bridge over the M40 has not been shown on Figure 17: Opportunities Plan or other figures later in the document. This opportunity was raised by a number of parties in the consultation process. The council will not insist on such a feature, but would like the opportunity to be recognised and at least positively explored. e) The council would welcome the opportunity to comment on the Green Infrastructure document referenced within the SPD. f) The County Council suggest that montage is submitted, with potential assistance, to illustrate the opportunity of a green land bridge over the M40. Noted. Noted. Noted. Comments It is not felt to be appropriate to specify the inclusion of such a feature, although it might be considered in the event that this proved to be necessary to secure the requirement of net biodiversity benefit. Noted. See comment above. Woodland Trust The New Settlement Proposal affects the ancient woodland of Gaydon Coppice and Chesterton Wood and both these sites therefore require full protection. The Stratford on Avon Core
Consultee Comments Response Hugh Conway - Gaydon Resident The noise from the M40 has to be experienced to be believed. Mitigation measures to reduce noise, air and light pollution are needed. Need for mitigation is agreed. Lighthorne Heath Parish Council The representatives at the GLH Public Consultation Friday 27th February and Saturday 28th February 2015 advised that the study was based on a 7 day period using static devices, which provided a definitive result. There appears to be no recognition of varying factors, e.g. the prevailing West wind would produce a successful result over that period, however a North Easterly wind would produce dramatically different results. The Planning Inspector was advised of this matter during his Examination in Public he agreed to walk through the site via the local public footpaths in order to experience the extreme noise levels generated by the busy M40 motorway. The possibility of the adverse effect of nitrous oxide pollutants so close to a busy motorway is another concern which does not appear to have been taken into consideration in the SPD, despite previous submissions by this Parish Council. The role of the SPD is to identify an issue or constraint that needs to be tackled and to set the context for future work that will respond to that need. Section 3.9, as revised, is considered to provide a robust basis for future work. See section 3.10 on Air Quality – the evidence on local conditions does not support the need for additional analysis. Highways Agency The Highways Agency notes the intention to provide a substantial landscape bund along the boundary with the M40 motorway in order to mitigate noise impacts over time. Whilst a typical cross-section for the landscape bund is provided, it is not clear from this whether additional tree planting is intended within the highways boundary; it should be noted that the Highways Agency will not allow any such tree planting within the boundary. The Highways Agency will also need to be assured that the protection to be provided will ensure that current noise regulations are not breached. Noted. This is not proposed. Noted.
The Highways Agency will have an interest in the design of the proposed landscape bund adjacent to the motorway boundary. It should be noted that the provision of interceptor drainage will be necessary to ensure that there is no surface water from the bund onto the motorway — as there must be no discharge of interceptor drainage into the motorway surface water drainage system. Accepted. Accepted – text added accordingly. Lighthorne Parish Council There is much use of ‘should’ but no detail — what exactly will be done and where? How will Lighthorne be protected from noise generated from the new settlement? What guarantees are given that the land movements required for the noise bund won’t fundamentally and irrevocably change the topography of this historic area? There is insufficient detail to be able to comment meaningfully. Comments noted. No specific change to the SPD is considered necessary. Chesterton and Kingston Parish Meeting The bund will be totally inadequate based on the topography of the site. What happens at the northern tip of the bund? The noise problem on the site will be a major factor. Noise is acknowledged as a significant factor and the SPD sets out clearly the standards against which the proposed mitigation will be judged. Gaydon Parish Council We have already stated that we regard as essential the noise bund protecting part of the site from noise pollution to be extended southwards to abut the B4451. In addition, given the close proximity of the new road to the village we would require mitigation measures to protect the village from noise, air and light pollution emanating from this. The bund is proposed as extending to the southern boundary of the site. matters relate to the public highway that is already under construction and are outside the scope of the SPD. 3.10 - Air Quality
4.0 - Vision and Principles Consultee Comments Response Mrs J Hargis - Wellesbourne Resident The clear strategic planning on GLH is positive for SDC communities as a whole. The phasing is important, and should be clearly emphasised - currently we have too much building that takes no account of phasing and causes much stress because of the noise and pollution that increases for those living near to such developments. Comments noted. Hugh Conway - Gaydon Resident The lack of green infrastructure and footpaths etc. through the allocated 100 hectares for JLR is a missed opportunity. designated cycleways and footpaths allowing interconnection with the off road network need to be illustrated and provided for. JLR and the Heritage Centre have cycle to work policies and this should be taken into account. Given the environmental sensitivity of the site with regard to the Beacon at Burton Dassett the potential for a landmark building on the industrial site should be rejected. The Housing development will be poorly connected and have few facilities: it is difficult to see the vision in this. We are especially concerned at the lack of clarity with regard to the stopped up roads and the risks associated with tipping and parking within them. This is a detailed issue that should be addressed at application stage. At this there is insufficient information to justify rejecting the aspiration to include a landmark building. This statement does not accurately reflect the proposals for the site. See previous comments on this concern. IM Properties Development Limited Page 47 "Quality of Housing Achieve a Building for Life Award" Due to changes associated with Building for Life 12 this should read "Aim to achieve a Built for Life Commendation" Accepted – text to be updated. fly
Consultee Comments Response Warwickshire and West Mercia Police In the third paragraph, WP/WMP welcome the inclusion of a reference to a police office. Such a facility is essential in providing a safe and secure environment for local residents. Noted. Lighthorne Parish Council The use of the words “Village Centre” in the SPD is a misnomer and is not supported by this Parish Council. Lighthorne Heath is a ‘‘village’’ with approximately 300 houses and the largest of the four communities most affected by the GLH proposal. 3,000, or even 2,500 homes in the earlier stages of GLH, cannot be described as a village when it is indeed a town second only to Southam in this locality in size. The proposal set out in the SPD for a high density ‘‘village centre” with 3 storey town houses and 4 storey commercial premises is unacceptable to this Parish, especially given the elevated contour of its siting (@42m above the motorway). It is abundantly clear that the GLH proposal for up to 3,000 homes is barely viable unless such densities could be achieved, and what concerns this Parish is that the resultant “town centre”, albeit with little mixed use employment, is out of keeping with such a rural setting which currently comprises of mainly Grade 3 unspoilt agricultural land. This is at odds with the vision we have set out in the preceding paragraph of a unique environmentally sustainable environment. Noted. The average density is considered modest at 37.5dph. It is not inappropriate that there should be a variety of different character areas with varying densities and it is realistic to propose that those around the centre will be at the higher end of the density range. This does not compromise an environmentally sustainable approach. Stratford Voice Page 65 The illustrative village centre plan is far too angular having all straight line streets. Firstly this would encourage vehicle speeding (even with road humps) and secondly provides a potentially boring village centre - there need to be turns and softer corners to provide interest. Comments noted – the layout is purely illustrative and will be subject to ongoing discussions via the application process. The concept of providing a central square is however supported. 5.5 - Jaguar Land Rover
Consultee Comments Response Lighthorne Parish Council Sewerage — guarantees and must be provided regarding the 10 mile pipeline required to Longbridge. Has land been acquired, are CPOS required, where will it cross the M40 etc. etc.? There is insufficient detail to be able to comment meaningfully. works will be undertaken by STW under the statutory powers available to it. 5.8 - Community Infrastructure
Consultee Comments Response Highways Agency Under Section 6.2 it is recognised that a Phasing Plan should be developed to help guide the approach to delivery of the project. A series of guiding principles are intended to inform this. An additional principle could be incorporated in this section to recognise that any necessary highways infrastructure must be delivered in parallel with new development, such that impacts are mitigated at an appropriate time — and that highways safety and efficiency is not compromised. In relation to infrastructure funding and delivery, it can be expected that close co-operation between all stakeholders will inform this, and that appropriate triggers and delivery mechanisms will be a key consideration of all future planning decisions. The role of the Council's Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) — including its regular monitoring and review provide a useful point of reference in this section — to demonstrate consistency with the Local Plan, and the links to the Council's overall development strategy. Similarly, reference to the potential collection and use of CIL funding, by the Council would be useful in this section - to provide clarity and consistency in relation to other relevant aspects of the LDF. Accepted - the expectations are now more clearly stated. and agreed. Agreed – new text has been accordingly. Agreed – new text has been added accordingly. Hallam Land Management Proposal GLH of the Proposed Submission Core Strategy (CS) requires the phased delivery of utilities and highways/transport infrastructure. Furthermore, Policy CS.26 requires that infrastructure should be delivered concurrently with, or in advance of, development. The Strategic Phasing section of the Draft SPD also identifies the need for a phasing strategy which integrates development, infrastructure and landscaping, however, it then proposes three phases of development without Agreed – text amended accordingly.
preferable for children to be schooled within their own community environment but should this development go ahead I would seek assurance that Kineton High School would receive significant financial assistance to be able to accommodate the extra students. Schooling in the community would also eliminate the need to travel and would also contribute significantly towards less congestion on the road network. Finally, considering the scale of the development planned and the close proximity of many major businesses, not least JLR and Aston Martin Lagonda, I urge the developers to ensure super high speed broadband is provided. It is an essential component of any development if we are to attract high tech manufacturing and research business into the area to grow the local economy, and to enable new and existing residents alike to access digital service at modern standards. Noted and agreed. Gaydon Parish Council This Parish Council regards this document as premature especially in view of the Inspectors Interim Report suspending the Examination process on the Core Strategy a Sustainability Assessment has been conducted. At the very least, clear objective assessments of all sites need to be conducted and comprehensive reasons need to be given for those that are already dismissed. We certainly endorse the necessity of this and ask that Gaydon Parish as a whole is included in this process as our sustainability is under threat by noise, compromised traffic flow, lack of through pedestrian access to other settlements and open spaces and lack of provision of mixed employment for our residents. We also feel that the planned facilities are inadequate for the size of the planned population especially in light of its distance from other major centres We repeat, this SPD is premature bearing in mind that other sites have not been properly evaluated. This needs to occur as they are more likely to offer more sustainable growth opportunities than originally assessed. Both new towns and existing settlements need room for managed growth to ensure that populations do not age rendering facilities unsustainable. Noted – see previous comments.