Respond

The Regulation 19 Consultation Period is Tuesday 21st July to Tuesday 8th September. To respond, you can use the SWLP portal or fill out a form. The SWLP team have published a detailed guidance note with further information. We have produced a short guide to using the portal here.

The key sections to comment on are 8.10 and 8.11. You will need to scroll down to them. These two sections put forward the green belt land north of Leamington for development. The site was previously referred to as SG06 but has now been split into two smaller sites referred to as LEA.1 and LEA.2.

What arguments can I make?

You can only comment on whether the content of the plan is legally compliant and whether it is sound. To be sound it needs to be ‘positively prepared’, ‘effective’, ‘justified’ and ‘consistent with national policy’ – all terms which are defined in paragraph 36 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which is extracted here.

Some of the arguments that the Parish Council will be using in its response are outlined below.

These arguments are taken from an independent site assessment report that we commissioned. It can be read in full here.

Another useful document is the independent Green Belt Review that we also commissioned. It can be read in full here.

1. The Local Plan is not legally compliant

The plan is not legally compliant in respect of LEA.1 / LEA.2 because: 

  1. The plan does not comply with the NPPF with regard to the decision to release Green Belt land at LEA.1 and LEA.2. 
  1. The appropriate evidence base has not been prepared. Statutory assessments are partial, incomplete and in some cases now superseded due to the significant change in housing numbers between the Regulation-18 and Regulation-19 stages. 
  1. Since 2021 when the preparation of this Local Plan began, there has not been conscientious consideration of responses from people highlighting material issues. This means that the consultation process has not been compliant with consultation case law. 

2. The Local Plan is not positively prepared

To be positively prepared, a plan needs to provide a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs.

The proposed allocation of LEA.1/LEA.2 does not meet objectively assessed needs because it is not informed by an appropriate assessment of development and infrastructure requirements. There are severe constraints affecting the allocation of LEA.1 and LEA.2. These include:

  • significant Green Belt release
  • loss of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) agricultural land
  • heritage sensitivity
  • flood risk
  • landscape impacts
  • the potential cumulative impact on highways and access.

Rather than demonstrating that these constraints have informed a realistic scale and distribution of growth, the Plan over-allocates in this vulnerable location, proposing an increase from 1,784 homes at Regulation-18 to a minimum 2,017 dwellings at Regulation-19. 

3. The Local Plan is not justified

To be justified, a plan needs to provide an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence.

This Local Plan is not justified in respect of a) the Growth Strategy, b) the evidence base, c) the approach to Green Belt, d) infrastructure planning, e) environmental constraints, f) heritage assets and g) agricultural land. The reasons are outlined here: 

Last minute increase in housing numbers not justified by evidence base

The Regulation-18 consultation baseline was to provide 811 homes per annum in Warwick District using the HEDNA method. In the Regulation-19 Plan this has been increased to 1,085 homes per annum. This means the scoring matrices that are intended to support the allocations are unsafe. It is impossible to know if the Plan takes account of reasonable alternatives because objective evidence is lacking. It is based on technical studies configured around the lower housing threshold. For example, the Councils do not appear to have provided a robust, up-to-date landscape character assessment, sequential test or detailed viability modelling to justify the proposed amount of development within the allocation of SG06 (LEA.1 and LEA.2) in this unsustainable location. 

Changes in housing numbers not evidenced

The Plan is not supported by the "Concept Masterplan" and its own technical evidence because it proposes a much greater quantity of development. The Masterplan Report states that SG06 (now LEA.1 and LEA.2) can deliver 1,784 dwellings. However the Regulation-19 Local Plan states that LEA.1 will provide a minimum of 1,043 new homes and LEA.2 will provide a minimum 974 homes. This is a material difference. 

Additionally, a Park & Ride facility has now been introduced which did not feature in the Regulation-18 Consultation (see Policy ID.7). It is unclear where at this late stage how this allocation is evidenced. There is no assessment around the impact of the proposed site that takes account of the loss Green Belt, heritage, highway capacity, flood risk etc. There is no justification for the proposed loss of pitch and sports facilities, loss of BMV agricultural land or other site-specific constraints that the allocation include. Similarly, there is no viability assessment or cumulative impact assessment in terms of highway capacity.

The land is Green Belt not Grey Belt and the loss is not justified

The principle of releasing a substantial area of land from the Green Belt in this location is unjustified. We commissioned an independent assessment by Land Use Consultants (April 2026) which clearly demonstrates how the proposed site allocation makes a ‘strong’ contribution to the purpose of the Green Belt.

Additionally, there are flaws in the Green Belt Review carried out by Arup for the South Warwickshire Local Plan. Some of the methodological decisions taken are contradictory to planning guidance and should be interrogated, for example the decision to incorporate developed areas within land parcels, thereby diluting openness and reducing Purpose A contribution and, secondly, creating parcels that are not well contained and using defensible boundaries that include minor roads which are less robust and could result in urban sprawl.

Infrastructure planning is inadequate

The Local Plan acknowledges that the strategic transport impacts have been assessed in “broad isolation” and the Highways Authority has confirmed that detailed network modelling has been deferred. This means that the strategy is un-evidenced. Site allocations must be the most appropriate strategy when considered against reasonable alternatives, entirely underpinned by objective data.  This data is not available. This means that the Councils have failed to produce proportionate evidence to justify why the spatial distribution being advanced by the Plan is sustainable. Furthermore, the ‘Infrastructure Delivery Plan (Part two) Appendix B’ identifies some, but not all the infrastructure proposed for the site allocation and marks the costs as ‘TBC’. Collectively the necessary infrastructure costs have not been calculated and tested against the viability of the proposed allocations.   

Additionally, in the AECOM ‘SG05 and SG06 – Lillington and North Leamington Baseline Report, May 2026,’ the viability of the site is raised as a red site constraint. The proposed ‘Leamington North- Land to east of A452, Park and Ride facility’ has not been assessed as part of the wider baseline report or concept masterplan relating to the adjoining SG06 allocation.

Identified environmental constraints are not addressed

The Sustainability Assessment and supporting evidence identify significant environmental constraints affecting SG06 (LEA.1 and LEA.2), including extensive Green Belt release and coalescence, designated heritage assets, flood risk, landscape impacts and the loss of BMV agricultural land. However, the Plan does not adequately explain why these allocations remain the most appropriate strategy when compared to reasonable alternatives which were identified at earlier stages.

The Sustainability Assessment does not also take account of the recent Local Nature Recovery Strategy which identifies that part of the SG06 allocation is within the defined Dunsmore Nature Improvement Area, which is allocated to deliver landscape-scale connectivity and habitat creation and management, not residential development. The Local Wildlife Site (LWS) ‘River Avon and Tributaries’ is within SG06 and it is unclear how this has been taken account in the proposed allocation. 

Identified heritage constraints are not addressed

The ‘Heritage and Settlement Sensitivity Assessment for Warwick and Stratford-on-Avon Local Plan (SWLP), September 2022’ noted that: “To the northwest of historic Leamington, but now subsumed into the larger urban area are the Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings of Lillington, these are of national significance. Other significant sites include the historic hamlet of Old Milverton and the Registered Park and garden of Guy’s Cliffe.” The allocation of SG06 could result in the loss of heritage assets identified in the ‘Heritage and Settlement Sensitivity Assessment for Warwick and Stratford-on-Avon Local Plan (SWLP), September 2022’. The historic hamlet of Old Milverton would also be lost, engulfed by the proposed strategic sites. 

These constraints were identified in earlier stages of the Plan's development, yet they not been acknowledged, addressed or assimilated in the final decision-making process.

Development on highest quality agricultural land is not justified 

The evidence shows that LEA.1 and LEA.2 is wholly Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land. It is predominantly Grade 2, with some Grade 1 and Grade 3a. LEA 2 forms a significant part of a commercially viable, professionally-managed tenant farm which grows high quality wheat and oats for major national manufacturers, alongside sustainable cover-cropping under the Sustainable Farming Initiative. Everything operates to “Red Tractor” certified standards.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires decision-makers to give significant weight to the economic and other benefits of BMV land and to direct development away from it wherever possible. This is a material planning policy requirement, not a discretionary consideration. Additionally, strict sequential preference needs to be followed in any decision to release the land for development.

Yet the Sustainability Assessment confirms that the Grade 3 land has not even undergone site-specific testing to differentiate between Grade 3a (BMV) and Grade 3b. And strict sequential preference has not been evidenced in respect of the decision to develop this land.

4. The Local Plan is not effective

To be effective, a plan must be deliverable over the plan period. However, key reports show that the SG06 allocation (LEA.1 and LEA.2) is not deliverable over the plan period and that key decisions have been deferred.   
 
For example, a Sustainability Assessment must robustly appraise the baseline viability of its allocations.  However, the SWLP Sustainability Assessment preceded the completion of the whole-plan Viability Assessment, with a Joint Cabinet Committee on 28th May 2026 confirming that work on viability was underway at the time the Plan’s allocations were being advanced.   
 
The ‘Infrastructure Delivery Plan (Part two) Appendix B’ identifies some, but not all the infrastructure proposed for the site allocation and marks the costs as ‘TBC’. Collectively the necessary infrastructure costs have not been calculated and tested against the viability of the proposed site.  

It is also noted that in the AECOM ‘SG05 and SG06 – Lillington and North Leamington Baseline Report, May 2026,’ the viability of the site is raised as a red site constraint and there is no detailed assessment of the proposed ‘Leamington North- Land to east of A452, Park and Ride facility’. 
 
LEA.1, LEA.2 and the proposed ‘Leamington North- Land to east of A452, Park and Ride facility’ are fragmented across multiple land ownerships. This adds legal and land assembly challenges to sites already affected by long lead-in times, threatening delivery within the Plan period. There is no supporting Statement of Common Ground between the interested parties, or any evidence that they have informed the concept masterplan or support the proposed allocations. 

The Viability Report also says that the Plan is not viable and recommends further work in at least nine areas, including further strategic site reviews, infrastructure calculations and the creation of delivery strategies and masterplans to explain how comprehensive development will be delivered. The planning authority says that “it will continue to refine its understanding of viability before submission.” However, Regulation-19 is not about refining viability. At this point, the planning authority must be confident that the proposed sites are deliverable and viable. The evidence strongly shows otherwise and the Local Plan therefore fails a key test of soundness.

5. The Local Plan is not consistent with national policy

A plan is consistent if it enables the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the NPPF and other statements of national planning policy. The South Warwickshire Local Plan is inconsistent in a number of areas, for example: 

  • NPPF paragraph 11b(i) states that where policies protecting areas or assets of particular importance apply, including those relating to designated heritage assets and areas at risk of flooding, these can provide a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development. The Council’s evidence identifies the presence of these constraints within LEA.1/LEA.2, but the Plan does not clearly demonstrate how they have informed the allocations. Instead, the strategy is proceeding, without evidence, on the basis that adverse effects can be mitigated when a planning application is submitted and without demonstrating that the allocations are consistent with national policy at the plan-making stage. 
  • NPPF footnote 65 requires that where significant development of agricultural land is necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be preferred to those of higher quality. LEA.1 /LEA.2 is predominantly Grade 2 land, i.e. best and most versatile (BMV). A smaller proportion is Grade 3. By failing to perform site-specific testing to differentiate between Grade 3a and 3b land, the Plan fails to demonstrate that it has actively sought to avoid BMV agricultural assets. Therefore the allocation does not take account of national policy and Government direction which mandate the strict protection of BMV farmland to preserve national food security. 

So what needs to change?

This is the final thing you will be asked in the Regulation-19 consultation. We will be asking the Councils to:

  • Remove site LEA.1 from the South Warwickshire Local Plan.
  • Remove site LEA.2 from the South Warwickshire Local Plan.
  • Remove the proposed ‘Leamington North – Land to east of A452, Park and Ride Facility’ from the Plan.
  • Maintain the existing green belt boundaries to the north of Leamington to prevent coalescence of settlements.

Summary

Long lead-in times and high policy-driven viability risks for LEA.1 and 2 threaten the soundness and delivery of the entire Plan. Green Belt land would be incorrectly released and many aspects of the evidence base are inadequate (statutory assessments are partial, incomplete or out of date). It is not sound for many reasons. In particular, severe constraints have been identified but instead of using these to inform a realistic scale and distribution of growth, the Plan over-allocates, proposing an increase from 1,784 dwellings (Regulation-18) to a minimum 2,017 (Regulation-19), without any new evidence base as justification.