No

ID sylw: 103971

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Camille Newton

It is concerning that environmental consideration has not been given greater weighting in the selection of new settlements. The sites put forward include areas with Local Wildlife Sites and potential Local Wildlife Sites. as well as other important sites for nature. A number of the sites are also within Green Belt designations, which are important for wildlife and conserving habitats. Greater emphasis should be placed on assessing and choosing the least damaging sites for the environment for the council to meet its Environment Act 2021 target of 30% of land allocated to nature and in recovery by 2030.

No

ID sylw: 104086

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Dr Nicola Sawle

the decision to site large scale develops within the county's green belt whilst other areas which meet the objective of being in the M40 corridor which has significant industry development disrespects the character of the region, its environmental assets and the needs of the county. Those sites due to their remote position within the county are unlikely to attract industrial demand within a mixed site nor have sufficient local services

No

ID sylw: 104163

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Mary Harman

It focuses on New Settlements, merging villages and urbanizing the countryside and not upholding green belt protections for historic villages or considering heritage and food security.

Yes

ID sylw: 104183

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Rachel Pope

I support the development of new settlements which are not in the Green Belt. They will enable better attention to be paid to infrastructure and design and they will ensure that existing historic towns and settlements do not merge.

Yes

ID sylw: 104248

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Amanda Waters

none

Other

ID sylw: 104253

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr ROLAND CHERRY

As ever it is a balance between locating new housing near to where people can work along with retaining the character of the area. South Warwickshire is blessed with some lovely pastoral landscapes and they are too precious to lose. It seems that central government is dictating too much development in the countryside and less new development in the conurbations - that strikes me as the wrong way round. Building on pastoral land is fundamentally wrong for biodiversity too - we need to feed a growing population whilst trying to preserve habitat for our endangered wildlife and plant life.

Yes

ID sylw: 104264

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Peter Sinclair

New settlements allow new sustainable development with adequate facilities and infrastructure built into these new areas to serve the population, rather than placing strain on existing areas.

Yes

ID sylw: 104323

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: 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

ID sylw: 104506

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Andrew Milton

New settlements should form the main focus of the new development plan. Our current towns are already significantly congested and it is difficult to retrofit. New settlements can be designed from scartch with the needs of the modern world in mind.

No

ID sylw: 104687

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Campaign to Protect Rural England - Warwickshire

The Policy Direction is not supported. The scale of proposed development is much greater than is required It is not required for natural change in the population and is almost wholly going to be occupied by people moving into the area New housing around South Warwickshire’s towns will harm their setting and generate harmful traffic The numbers are not likely to be delivered in practice Green Belt should not be undermined by development. New settlements in various rural locations would urbanise the countryside Existing 'new settlements’ (Long Marston Airfield, Gaydon-Lighthorne Heath, Kingshill) should be completed before any more are considered.

No

ID sylw: 104797

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Alice Burton

N/A

Yes

ID sylw: 104874

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Kenneth Chitty

Whilst I agree with new settlementsI feel this lack both vision and ambition. Ideally one new town would be designed from the ground up to accommodate all the required 28k dwellings plus expansion of another 10K. This approach was adopted in the 1960;s with great success. It has briefly resurfaced with proposals from Gordon Brown and David Cameron but in both cases lack of political conviction prevented concrete progress - had either of the "visions" progressed the current need for housing would have evaporated. Courage is required and leadership displayed, sadly I doubt it will be displayed, an opportunity missed.

Other

ID sylw: 104900

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Hannah Green

I agree that there is a need for more housing and can understand why the new settlements are seen as better in some ways than infilling existing communities. However there needs to be more emphasis on creating communities rather than just building rows of lego land houses that have no heart and soul. Infilling potentially increases the strain on the resources already in place without increasing the resources themselves. A fully serviced new settlement could reduce the strain for existing services but it could increase the burden in other ways.

Other

ID sylw: 105095

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: St Philips

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

St Philips recognises the need for new sites, including New Settlements, to meet housing demands in the SWLP area. The NPPF emphasises that plans must be aspirational yet achievable and based on reasonable evidence. It is crucial for the SWAs to test alternatives for housing distribution early on and to assess site viability during planning. St Philips support the exploration of New Settlements, but also emphasise that they cannot solely address the SWLP’s needs, and a variety of suitable sites are essential for timely housing supply.

No

ID sylw: 105314

Derbyniwyd: 28/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Warwickshire Wildlife Trust

Warwickshire Wildlife Trust is concerned about potential environmental impacts of new settlements allocations. Important sites, including LWSs and SSSIs, have been overlooked in the selection process. Proposals within the Green Belt threaten designated sites and protected species, reducing access to nature for urban residents.

Impacted designations include the following:
A1/2- River Alne LWS, Round Wood and Long Wood LWS, Grove Wood PLWS and Grotton Hill Wood LWS
C1 - Gilbert’s and Claypits coppices, Linnear Woodland LWS
E1 Allocation - adjoining AONB, Meon Vale LWS, River Avon LWS and the greenway, dismantled railway, Welford Hill Farm Meadows PLWS, Rumerhill Coppice PLWS and Coxmere Coppice PLWS
BW - Newfoundland Wood LWS, Stratford Canal PLWS, River Avon LWS and Wood by Churchill
G1 - Itchington Holt PLWS
F1 - Long Itchington and Ufton woods SSSI
F2 - Deppers Bridge Meadow PLWS
F3 - South Southam LWS and Disused railway LWS.

Other

ID sylw: 105476

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Manor Oak Homes Limited

Asiant : Jeremy Flawn

We believe that basing the strategy on various options, including new settlements, is crucial for addressing long-term housing needs in the Plan area. The current housing need figure is significantly below the new Standard Method requirement, resulting in a substantial shortfall of over 12,000 dwellings. To meet this demand, the emerging Local Plan should consider at least two, if not three, new settlements. The deliverability of land in these locations is vital to meet housing targets, aligning with national policy to support ambitious housing goals.

Yes

ID sylw: 105919

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Sworders

Asiant : Sworders

Yes, we agree with the approach laid out in draft policy direction 2 – potential new settlements. The Council states that one or more new settlements will be identified and considered for strategic site allocation in the most sustainable locations and where they can be developed to a suitable minimum size, recognising the importance of large-scale developments as set out in Paragraph 77 of the NPPF. We would like to emphasise the suitability of identified potential new settlement G1 for an allocation. Potential settlement locations A1, A2, B1, BW and C1 should NOT be included within the Local Plan due to them being located within the green belt when other suitable options are available and suitable to come forward outside of the green belt, such as G1. Including allocations for new settlements within the green belt when other suitable sites (G1) outside of the green belt are available risks the new local plan becoming unsound and as such should not be considered. New settlements in railway corridors should form an important part of the overall strategy as they will deliver housing and jobs over a long period of time, contributing not just to this Plan’s strategy but that of future Plans too, and would deliver highly sustainable new development where residents can either work close to their home, or travel by sustainable transport to work.

Other

ID sylw: 106187

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Acres Land & Planning

I welcome the bold decision to recommend a range of suggestions for new settlements in order to give choice and options for new growth in the area. But the Council will know that new settlements (in addition to being land hungry and expensive to build) take time to deliver and hence ensure that people moving to those areas will be in a constant climate of change with evolving services and continuing disruption. This is not to denigrate the concept of new settlements but to point out that organic growth in towns and villages (where people can slot into existing communities and friendship patterns) should not be rejected. Both have their place. Paragraph 4.2 floats the suggestion that new settlements offer the opportunity of 20 minute neighbourhoods and car free communities. The reality is very much the opposite.

Other

ID sylw: 106188

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Acres Land & Planning

The SWLP is unusual in highlighting 12 potential new settlements but the policy wording refers to ‘one or more’ new settlements coming forward. More clarity is needed, even at this stage. I don’t propose to offer comments on the specific proposals.

Yes

ID sylw: 106210

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Cala Homes (Cotswolds)

Asiant : Lichfields (London)

Cala broadly agrees with Draft Policy Direction 2, which is in line with NPPF paragraph 77, and welcomes identification of twelve potential new settlement locations. In particular, Cala supports assessment of Location “E1 - Long Marston Airfield” as a “More Suitable” location.

This site is important to meet strategic housing and employment needs. Phased development is underway on the Garden Village site and it is important that the existing allocation adopted through the Core Strategy is not undermined. Future allocations should seek to maximise densities within the Garden Village and across the whole E1 settlement. Changes to the allocation must not compromise or create uncertainty for delivery of the existing allocation.

Cala notes the New Settlements Assessment and the indicative capacity for 9,850 dwellings. A variety of land ownerships have been promoted and it would be helpful to identify how this figure is spread across the promoted areas. The potential new settlement will need to consider connectivity with the existing allocated Garden Village, as well as infrastructure, design, character areas, and the mix of uses.

No

ID sylw: 106351

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Bradley Reeves

Last night, I attended a local housing consultation in the village of Ashorne and I was genuinely astonished to learn that the current plan includes proposals for 12 large-scale housing developments. This approach is completely unacceptable and fails to take into account the long-term impact on our communities, infrastructure, and countryside. I completely disagree with these proposals. It’s clear that big developers and their consultants are driving this plan, presenting biased analysis that prioritizes profit over sustainability, quality of life, and local interests. We need a better, more balanced approach—one that distributes housing more evenly across the county, prevents infrastructure overload, and ensures that development works for us, not just for developers. Below is an alternative strategy that puts communities first. A dispersed housing strategy involves distributing new residential developments across multiple smaller sites rather than concentrating them in large-scale developments in a single area. This approach ensures a more balanced distribution of housing, infrastructure, and economic benefits while protecting the character and sustainability of towns and villages. Advantages of a Dispersed Housing Scheme
1. Protects the Character of Rural Areas
2. Reduces Infrastructure Overload
3. Fairer Distribution of Economic Benefits
4. Enhances Community Integration
5. More Sustainable and Flexible Growth
Strategy for Implementing a Dispersed Housing Model
1. Strategic Site Allocation Across the County
2. Infrastructure-Linked Development
3. Planning Policies
4. Encourage Local Developer & SME Involvement
5. Environmental & Sustainability Considerations
The Disadvantages of Large-Scale Developments in One Area
1. Infrastructure Overload
2. Loss of Countryside & Green Spaces
3. Creates Soulless, Isolated Estates
4. Developer-Led, Not Community-Led
5. Increased Pressure on Public Transport & Road Networks
Conclusion A dispersed housing strategy is the best way to accommodate future housing needs without destroying our countryside or overloading infrastructure. It promotes fairer economic distribution, stronger communities, and a more sustainable approach to growth. Instead of giving large developers free rein to build massive estates in a single location, the focus should be on smaller, better-planned developments across multiple sites—ensuring that growth is community-driven, not profit-driven. I would appreciate a response on this, as it’s clear that the current approach is not in the best interest of our communities. I hope those responsible for shaping this plan are willing to consider alternative, more sustainable solutions rather than simply following the path laid out by large developers and consultants. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Other

ID sylw: 106565

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Edward Muntz

Asiant : Sworders

Whilst we have no objections to New Settlements in principle, we are concerned that over-reliance on large, complex sites will see a shortfall in housing need, particularly in the early years of the plan period.
Furthermore, it will deny other areas of the district the benefits that development can bring. The strategy of New Settlements and Strategic Growth Areas should be supported by allocation of small and medium sized sites adjacent to existing settlements. Whereas the site in Hockley Heath Site ID Ref 672 is in single ownership, where the landowner has expressed intention to sell, and with no foreseen extraordinary development costs or constraints and market conditions appear favourable.
Some of the Potential New Settlements fall outside the Spatial Growth Strategy Priority Areas and do not include any existing settlements of facilities and services, this would contradict the statement in the preferred Options that “the majority of the SWLP’s strategic growth needs will be met within priority areas 1-3.” As such we consider that the Strategic approach should have greater focus on the Strategic growth locations as opposed to the New Settlements. Some of these locations are isolated from the main strategic transport network across the SWLP and local bus routes and train stations which all tend to be concentrated around the northern part of the district
and built up areas of Warwick, Leamington and Stratford, and yet the Infrastructure Delivery Plan does not propose any major changes in these isolated areas. Without significant infrastructure and improvements to public transport, some new settlements would rely heavily on the use of the private car, therefore, do not represent the most sustainable pattern for growth.

Other

ID sylw: 106578

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: The Umberslade Estate

Asiant : Sworders

Whilst we have no objections to New Settlements in principle, we are concerned that over-reliance on large, complex sites will see a shortfall in housing need, particularly in the early years of the plan period.
Furthermore, it will deny other areas of the district the benefits that development can bring. The strategy of New Settlements and Strategic Growth Areas should be supported by allocation of small and medium sized sites adjacent to existing settlements. Sites 41 and 58 to the south-west of Hockley Heath are in single ownership, where the landowner has expressed intention to sell, with no foreseen extraordinary development costs or constraints. Market conditions also appear favourable.
Some of the Potential New Settlements fall outside the Spatial Growth Strategy Priority Areas and do not include any existing settlements of facilities and services. This would contradict the statement in the preferred Options that “the majority of the SWLP’s strategic growth needs will be met within priority areas 1-3.” As such we consider that the Strategic approach should have greater focus on the Strategic growth locations as opposed to the New Settlements.
Some of these locations are also isolated from the main strategic transport network across the SWLP and
local bus routes and train stations which all tend to be concentrated around the northern part of the district and built up areas of Warwick, Leamington and Stratford. However, the Infrastructure Delivery Plan does not propose any major changes in these isolated areas. Without significant infrastructure and to public transport, some new settlements would rely heavily on the use of the private car, therefore, do not represent the most sustainable pattern for growth.

Yes

ID sylw: 106619

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mac Mic Group

Asiant : McLoughlin Planning

The Respondent is generally supportive of the inclusion of new settlements as a potential growth strategy as they can be an effective way, at least in theory, of delivering new housing where there are barriers to the sustainable delivery of sufficient housing elsewhere. However, in reality, the physical implementation of new settlements is often complex and costly, which can significantly hamper their delivery.
The Respondent would therefore caution against over reliance on new settlements in the preferred growth strategy.
Where new settlements are proposed the infrastructure requirements should be identified and robustly costed to ensure that delivery is viable. The Councils should also take a conservative approach regarding assumed capacity and likely build-out rates and avoid including housing completions from new settlements too early in the plan period.
Given that only four of the identified potential new settlements are considered to be suitable, we consider it of fundamental importance that sustainable extension sites to existing urban settlements are prioritised over the development of new settlements. In short, we are of the view that the growth of existing settlements should be prioritised within the overall growth strategy for South Warwickshire, as opposed to the delivery of new settlements.

No

ID sylw: 106636

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Warwickshire Property and Development Group

Asiant : Framptons

It is also vitally important that deliverability and viability considerations are also addressed.
whilst the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 2 broadly aligns with Paragraph 77 of the Framework, which states: ‘The supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns, provided they are well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities (including a genuine choice of transport modes).’
It has not been adequately demonstrated that the potential New Settlements will be supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities, including a genuine choice of transport modes. Opportunities for rail links to these Potential New Settlements may be challenging and therefore further information is required to demonstrate how such development can help to meet identified needs in a sustainable way.
The need for significant new infrastructure and facilities to support the Potential New Settlements will mean that these growth locations are unlikely to be delivered until towards the end of the Plan Period to 2050. Clearly, there is a requirement for smaller allocations to meet the identified housing needs in the shorter term, in accordance with Paragraph 72 of the Framework.
It is submitted that Land off Bush Heath Road, Harbury should form part of a mix of sites within the Spatial Growth Strategy to assist in meeting South Warwickshire’s identified housing need. The site within lies in Spatial Growth Strategy -Priority Area 2 immediately adjacent to the built-up edge of the village, and of a scale (approx 100 dwellings) that can be delivered quickly to meet the Council’s 5yr housing land supply in the early years of the Plan.

Yes

ID sylw: 106683

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: William George and Patricia Anne Winter

Nifer y bobl: 2

As a principle, we support the development of larger settlements over piecemeal, unstructured and random building of small and medium-sized developments.

In the case of South Warwickshire, the larger settlements would include the likes of Long Marston Airfield, the Bearley/Snitterfield area, the Wellesbourne area, as well as the Gaydon/Lighthorne settlements, which are so well-served by their proximity to the M40 corridor.

Other

ID sylw: 106698

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Ben Pick

Asiant : Sworders

Whilst we have no objections to New Settlements in principle, we are concerned that over-reliance on large, complex sites will see a shortfall in housing need, particularly in the early years of the plan period. Furthermore, it will deny other areas of the district the benefits that development can bring. The strategy of New Settlements and Strategic Growth Areas should be supported by allocation of small and medium sized sites adjacent to existing settlements. Three of the Potential New Settlements fall outside the spatial Growth Strategy Priority Areas, being F2, F3 and G1 and do not include any existing settlements or facilities and services, this would contradict the statement in the Preferred Options document that “the majority of the SWLP’s strategic growth needs will be met within priority areas 1-3.” In particular some of these locations are isolated from the main strategic transport network across the SWLP along with local bus routes and train stations which all tend to be concentrated around the northern part of the district and built up areas of Warwick, Leamington and Stratford. Yet the Infrastructure Delivery Plan does not propose any major changes in these isolated areas. Without significant infrastructure and improvements to public transport, New Settlements F2, F3 and G1 would rely heavily on the use of the private car.

Other

ID sylw: 106706

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Raymond Randerson

Asiant : Sworders

Whilst we have no objections to New Settlements in principle, we are concerned that over-reliance on large, complex sites will see a shortfall in housing need, particularly in the early years of the plan period. Furthermore, it will deny other areas of the district the benefits that development can bring. The strategy of New Settlements and Strategic Growth Areas should be supported by allocation of small and medium sized sites adjacent to existing settlements. Three of the Potential New Settlements fall outside the spatial Growth Strategy Priority Areas, being F2, F3 and G1 and do not include any existing settlements or facilities and services, this would contradict the statement in the Preferred Options document that “the majority of the SWLP’s strategic growth needs will be met within priority areas 1-3.” In particular some of these locations are isolated from the main strategic transport network across the SWLP along with local bus routes and train stations which all tend to be concentrated around the northern part of the district and built up areas of Warwick, Leamington and Stratford. Yet the Infrastructure Delivery Plan does not propose any major changes in these isolated areas. Without significant infrastructure and improvements to public transport, New Settlements F2, F3 and G1 would rely heavily on the use of the private car.

Other

ID sylw: 106714

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Maureen Randerson

Asiant : Sworders

Whilst we have no objections to New Settlements in principle, we are concerned that over-reliance on large, complex sites will see a shortfall in housing need, particularly in the early years of the plan period. Furthermore, it will deny other areas of the district the benefits that development can bring. The strategy of New Settlements and Strategic Growth Areas should be supported by allocation of small and medium sized sites adjacent to existing settlements. Three of the Potential New Settlements fall outside the spatial Growth Strategy Priority Areas, being F2, F3 and G1 and do not include any existing settlements or facilities and services, this would contradict the statement in the Preferred Options document that “the majority of the SWLP’s strategic growth needs will be met within priority areas 1-3.” In particular some of these locations are isolated from the main strategic transport network across the SWLP along with local bus routes and train stations which all tend to be concentrated around the northern part of the district and built up areas of Warwick, Leamington and Stratford. Yet the Infrastructure Delivery Plan does not propose any major changes in these isolated areas. Without significant infrastructure and improvements to public transport, New Settlements F2, F3 and G1 would rely heavily on the use of the private car.

Yes

ID sylw: 106798

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: H W Smith Ltd

Asiant : Bruton Knowles

We agree with Draft Policy Direction 2’s intention to identify and consider the allocation of one or more new settlements.
It should also be recognised that Site E1, with an extension to include the Site, would be sufficiently detached from existing settlements, such that it could act as a self-sustaining settlement without reliance on other existing settlements for jobs, community facilities or services.
In addition, the Site is in the ownership of a single landowner with the ability to bring the land forward as part of a comprehensive masterplanned approach working collaboratively with the owners of Site E1. The landowner is therefore willing to engage with potential promoters and other landowners with an interest in Site E1. Therefore, the extension of Site E1 to include the Site would not introduce more complexity in terms of land assembly, and would not hinder the deliverability of a new settlement at Site E1. On the contrary, the landowner of the Site is willing to work closely with other landowners and the Councils to ensure the sites could be brought forward as soon as required during the plan period. Taking into account the above, it is considered that Site E1 should be extended to include the Site and be included as a proposed New Settlement Location for upwards of 10,000 dwellings and related employment in the SWLP.