No

Climate change must be more of a priority. It is important for plans and policies to consider the potential impact on the environment, both now and in the future. Climate change and ecological issues can have significant consequences for human health, the economy, and biodiversity. Thus, it is crucial that plans are developed with sustainability in mind. In general most points above are valid in my opinion, however there are a number of issues and actions which may be preferable to developing current green sites which is known to worsen climate outcomes: 1. Redevelopment of existing brownfield sites to minimise the impact of housing development on the green spaces and countryside around us. 2. Improvement of current housing provision including better insulation, use of alternative fuels and investment in public transport to reduce car usage 3. Assessment of housing needs in specific areas to tailor developments to those in the local communities 4. Consideration of the character of existing places alongside the ecological issues of using previous greenfield or agricultural land. Agricultural land is known to be important in helping to reduce emissions, as well as keeping the character, biodiversity and habitats of Warwickshire protected.

No

Ni roddwyd ateb

Yes

Ni roddwyd ateb

No

Your vision and strategic objectives are heavily biased in support of building and construction projects. They seem ignorant to the climate crisis and the damage already inflicted on our local landscapes. You have carefully managed your wording, but it is clear that beneath it all lies the singular intent to build ever more housing, roads, warehousing, commercial sites and industry, where we currently have green fields, woodland, farmland and ever-shrinking habitats. The character and nature of our rural and semi-rural settlements should be preserved, not threatened. The green-belt should be sacred, now more than ever. The preservation of these should be foremost in your vision and plan, and weave through it as a golden thread from start to end. Your final statement about 'preserv[ing] what already exists' in the environment is the one part I can agree on, and yet this sits as your last point, rather than your first, and it seems in stark contrast to many of your other listed objectives. More importantly, it seems in complete conflict to the actual details in the plans you have released. I am especially horrified at the plans I see for the areas around Wood End. Your plans would see the entire rural character of the location being decimated. The little lanes, the grazing deer, the quiet retreat that currently fills the location with magic would be forever broken. I beg you to reconsider your ideas and take away this unnecessary and looming threat.

No

I would like to add a further comment to my already answered reason why I disagree. There will be no net zero carbon targets, since if you build 6000 or even 600 houses in one location you will have a minimum of 6000, or 600 additional cars that will impact this. No one will walk to a train station. There are no regular buses in rural areas, so people will increase this by driving.

No

Ni roddwyd ateb

No

Ni roddwyd ateb

Yes

Ni roddwyd ateb

No

This process if flawed. Strategic Objectives 4 and 5 strive for Health, Wellbeing and environmental protection yet all the proposed growth options presume green belt development. Other options should have been put forward that do not rely on this instead favouring the redevelopment of retail and brownfield sites.

No

Ni roddwyd ateb

No

The Objectives appear to each be written as stand-alone silos whereas the reality is that many of the 12 are interlinked and affected by the others. I think they need to demonstrate those links and dependences more clearly. To be brutal they read as written by a separate paid for consultants and could apply to any other rural local authority and are not specific enough to South Warwickshire.

No

I agree with some of the principles but I fundamentally disagree to one of the principle visions of the plan 'Pro-active regarding economic growth'. Where is the evidence that economic growth leads to happiness, health and environmental sustainability? An extreme example would be the impact of the industrial revolution on the health and happiness of working class people. Obviously, some economic development, particularly in green technology, may not be bad but I don't think that economic growth for growths sake should EVER be a principle vision. An uncomfortable truth is that development causes carbon dioxide emissions, and house building that extends the size of towns (or creates conurbations) cuts people off from nature and thus directly opposes one of your objectives of improving residents physical and mental wellbeing.

No

Ni roddwyd ateb

Yes

Ni roddwyd ateb

No

The process is flawed because all five options presume Green Belt development without acknowledging the significant constraints involved, and contradicts Strategic Objective 4 & 5 regarding Health, well-being and environmental protection. This Consultation suggests five “Spatial Growth Options”. All 5 involve development within areas of Warwickshire’s Green Belt, and all include North Leamington Green Belt as an area of ‘significant urban extension’. Whilst this accords with the outcomes from a series of Spatial Growth Workshops, which revealed a preference to promote development at scale within the Green Belt, the premise of these workshops is grossly flawed. The proposition that Green Belt serves no legitimate function and can simply be ‘switched off’ as an academic exercise contradicts the significant contributions that both Warwick District Council and Stratford District Council have themselves noted that Green Belt designation makes. The Green Belt, with good reason, deliberately restricts what can be built within it. While the Spatial Growth Workshops explored growth options excluding Green Belt development, none of these were included within the present five. This is contrary to recent Government announcements, the 2015 greenbelt review and the 2017 response by the Planning Inspector.

Yes

Ni roddwyd ateb

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

The process is flawed because all five options presume Green Belt development without acknowledging the significant constraints involved, and contradicts Strategic Objective 4 & 5 regarding Health, well-being and environmental protection. This Consultation suggests five “Spatial Growth Options”. All 5 involve development within areas of Warwickshire’s Green Belt, and all include North Leamington Green Belt as an area of ‘significant urban extension’. Whilst this accords with the outcomes from a series of Spatial Growth Workshops, which revealed a preference to promote development at scale within the Green Belt, the premise of these workshops is grossly flawed. The proposition that Green Belt serves no legitimate function and can simply be ‘switched off’ as an academic exercise contradicts the significant contributions that both Warwick District Council and Stratford District Council have themselves noted that Green Belt designation makes. The Green Belt, with good reason, deliberately restricts what can be built within it. While the Spatial Growth Workshops explored growth options excluding Green Belt development, none of these were included within the present five. This is contrary to recent Government announcements, the 2015 greenbelt review and the 2017 response by the Planning Inspector.

No

Within the plan there seems a weighting towards development of greenfield sights that is contrary to the national planning policy that states in its 2021 version that these should be used only in special circumstances. I am particularly concerned with the proposed development arond Weston under weatherly and the way it will increase the urban sprawl between leamington and Coventry

Yes

Ni roddwyd ateb

No

The process is flawed because all five options presume Green Belt development without acknowledging the significant constraints involved, and contradicts Strategic Objective 4 & 5 regarding Health, well-being and environmental protection. This Consultation suggests five “Spatial Growth Options”. All 5 involve development within areas of Warwickshire’s Green Belt, and all include North Leamington Green Belt as an area of ‘significant urban extension’. Whilst this accords with the outcomes from a series of Spatial Growth Workshops, which revealed a preference to promote development at scale within the Green Belt, the premise of these workshops is grossly flawed. The proposition that Green Belt serves no legitimate function and can simply be ‘switched off’ as an academic exercise contradicts the significant contributions that both Warwick District Council and Stratford District Council have themselves noted that Green Belt designation makes. The Green Belt, with good reason, deliberately restricts what can be built within it. While the Spatial Growth Workshops explored growth options excluding Green Belt development, none of these were included within the present five. This is contrary to recent Government announcements, the 2015 greenbelt review and the 2017 response by the Planning Inspector.

Yes

Ni roddwyd ateb

No

Ni roddwyd ateb

No

The process if flawed. Strategic Objectives 4 and 5 strive for health, wellbeing and environmental protection yet all of the proposed growth options presume Green Belt development. Other options should have been put forward to ensure Strategic Objectives 4 and 5 can be better met.

No

This vision cannot be achieved because of the conflict between providing more development and reducing carbon emissions. The issue being that of car use and the particularly serious harm already being caused through continuing to provide for it. This cannot be called sustainable development.

Yes

Ni roddwyd ateb

No

Ni roddwyd ateb

Dim byd wedi’i ddewis

The process is flawed. Strategic Objectives 4 and 5 strive for health, wellbeing and environmental protection yet all of the proposed growth options presume Green Belt development. Other options should have been put forward to ensure Strategic Objectives 4 and 5 can be better met.

No

While objectives 4 and 5 have the laudable aims of striving for health, wellbeing and environmental protection, all proposed growth options are based around green belt development that directly goes against these objectives, as such the proposals are seriously flawed.

No

The process I flawed strategic objectives 4 and 5 strive for health and well-being, environmental benefits. No alternative options to green belt land in North Leamington area have been considered. Other options should have been made to meet these strategic objectives.

No

I believe that the Vision and Strategic Objectives should specifically state that avoiding development on greenbelt land will be prioritised at all stages of the plan development. This is not currently the situation with a heavy (unjustified) bias towards development in the greenbelt. The reasoning for this is that the greenbelt in local area has a vital importance in preventing urban sprawl (especially creeping sprawl towards Coventry) and keeping land permanently open. The protection of greenbelt should be given higher priority.