Other

ID sylw: 99933

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Martin Coward

I agree that providing new settlements should be the approach to meeting the development requirements. However, I do not agree with the methodology set out; it relies too heavily on existing policy guidance and does not start from the first principles of what communities need. The development plan has not been written by practitioners; it reads as a mechanical formulaic approach. Phrases such as "hierarchy of internal routes" are (to me) meaningless management consultant speak. No consideration of the impact on existing settlements, for instance.

No

ID sylw: 99968

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Caryn Brewer

Not suitable given the amount of traffic this will create. Infrastructure whole area will change to to a large town we need to keep our green spaces and countryside and rural area to live as it is. Small amounts of houses to increase in these areas would be far more acceptable.

Yes

ID sylw: 100001

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Miss Sabrina Hasnaoui

Agree with the utilisation of new settlements. This allows larger scale development to meet housing needs which can incorporate new amenities as well as integrating appropriate public transport. This will reduce strain on existing towns where frequently provisions and amenities are already under significant strain (schools, GPs, dentists) Increasing the population of existing areas needs to be carefully considered where in some areas (e.g central kenilworth, Stratford and Warwick)traffic congestion is a real issue with overuse of cars due to inadequate public transport. New settlements would mitigate this risk.

Other

ID sylw: 100134

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Susan Harrison

It seems the preferred options are because the landowners are amiable and not for other justified reasons

Other

ID sylw: 100149

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Susan Harrison

Interesting that the 4 of 12 preferred sites all have landowners that are contactable rather than holistic planning!!
Why does South Warwickshire need to provide souch more housing since this region has experienced the third highest new build expansion in the country?

No

ID sylw: 100161

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Mary Addyman

No. Warwickshire Wildlife Trust (WKWT) is extremely concerned regarding the allocation of a new settlement and the potential environmental impacts. Local Wildlife Sites, Potential Wildlife Sites, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, designated Nature Reserves and other important sites are incredibly important for wildlife within our natural landscape. It doesn’t appear that the Councils have considered these in the selection of their new settlement locations.

Yes

ID sylw: 100225

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

NA

No

ID sylw: 100313

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr DAVID HARRISON

THE SITE IS ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE FOR A "SETTLEMENT" LARGER THAN Alcester AND Henley in Arden,
THE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT RAIL LINKS ARE WRIONG...BEARLEY IS ON A SINGLE TRACK LINK BETWEEN STRATFORD/WARWICK. IT HAS NO CONNECTION TO BIRMINGHAM, SOME OF THE LAND HAS BEEN WRONGLY CATEGORISED, BEARLEY FARM IS APPARENTLY PROPOSING RENEWABLE ENERGY NOT HOUSING.

No

ID sylw: 100316

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr peter spreadbury

Development should focus on Brown Field site use, In-Fill and locations adjacent to existing transport, social, commercial, education, employment opportunities.

No

ID sylw: 100318

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Miss Rachel Fielden

We cannot keep destroying the natural habitat to create more houses, more roads, more tarmac. Why is there no drive to redevelop current brown field site/ disused sites in the county rather than destroying the precious green belts that we are so reliant on to counter pollution and to provide an escape for mental health etc

No

ID sylw: 100574

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Pauline James

Planning for larger scale development has benefits, but a poor design commits scarce land to wasteful use, failing future generations. It also encourages developers to maximise their profits in order to serve their shareholders rather than the public. This fails people aged 20-40 especially, it fails future needs and it does not protect communiteis.
Too much land is allocated. These new settlements are towns. As such it should be recognised that 8000 dwellings is achievable in just 50 hectares including roads and open spaces if built at the same density as Hamlet Way CV370AL (140 dwellings in 0.86ha).

No

ID sylw: 100641

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr John Barker

I do not agree with adding 6800 houses at Bearley/Wilmcote
Thousands more vehicle movements thorough villages with known issues with traffic and hazrds e.g Snitterfield cutting through to A46
Unnecessary Green belt development woth associated urban sprawl, loss of countryside and fam land, loss of wildlfe corridors
Overwhelming local infrastructire of GP surgeries and schools
New town split by busy A3400

Yes

ID sylw: 100676

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Catherine Hogarth

New settlements are the way forward, built to include the infrastructure within the development to encourage community, with relief roads and public transport adjusted to allow easy access to neighbouring towns, but minimising increases in traffic.

Other

ID sylw: 100680

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Gladman Developments

Gladman have no comments to make on any of the 12 potential new settlement locations which have been identified and their suitability for allocation, however we
would advise that sites of such significant sizes will take a considerable amount of time to come forward and duty must be paid to the Lichfields Start to Finish 3 (Third
Edition4report.
Evidence of housing delivery undertaken by Lichfields’ Start to Finish (third edition) dated March 2024 indicates that large schemes of 2,000+ dwellings can take on average 5.1 years to start and build out at an average of 100-180 dwellings per annum

No

ID sylw: 100710

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Miss Leanne Matthews

The various studies that have been undertaken have failed to demonstrate how the highway infrastructure can be delivered satisfactorily.

No

ID sylw: 100847

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr guy evans

Potential new settlements is a bad idea. It would be far better to spread the developments out across the districts in highly sustainable locations where infrastructure is already there this will result in quicker Development and cheaper Development which then will lead to cheaper housing and spread the economic benefits throughout the district rather than in one lump

Yes

ID sylw: 100859

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Rowington Landowner Consortium

Asiant : Knight Frank LLP

The landowner consortium supports the proposed growth strategy (new settlements, strategic growth locations, and infill development) to ensure a balanced distribution of development throughout the plan period, effectively addressing housing and employment needs. This phased approach ensures consistent housing delivery throughout the plan period.

No

ID sylw: 100912

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Kirsty Mcmullen

The infrastructure currently would not sustain housing on this scale and to make accommodation necessary would decimate the integrity of the greenbelt

No

ID sylw: 100915

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: The Princethorpe Foundation

Asiant : Sworders

Over-reliance on large, complex sites will see a shortfall in housing need, particularly in the early years of the plan period. The strategy should be supported by allocation of small and medium sized sites adjacent to existing settlements, such as Site 149 on the edge of Kenilworth, immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary, and existing employment area. A number of the potential New Settlements fall outside the Spatial Growth Strategy Priority Areas and are isolated from the main strategic transport network and would therefore require significant infrastructure improvements.

Yes

ID sylw: 101002

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs JANE MILES

New housing in combination with necessary employment, infrastructure and public transport options as comprehensive new settlements very much more preferable to simply adding more and more housing around small places such as Shipston, Bidford, Alcester - with their often inadequate infrastructure and/or poor public transport and negligible scope to extend the town centres. Also very difficult to successfully integrate ever larger numbers of new dwellings and residents with the existing communities

No

ID sylw: 101095

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Adrian Summers on behalf of the Summers Family

Asiant : The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

We fail to understand why some of the specific new settlement locations have been chosen and how disconnected they are from the Call for Sites exercises. We would also question the integrity of inviting further Call for Sites submissions where none were previously submitted. Were prospective new settlements to be identified then they should have drawn on the Call for Sites results.

No

ID sylw: 101162

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Richard Culley

just absolute rubbish

No

ID sylw: 101478

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Andrew Crump

Long Marston Airfield is in a rural location at the Gateway to the North Cotswolds. This is a sensitive location, with Meon Hill acting as the first Cotswold Landscape feature abutting Meon Vale. The nature and character of this area will be traduced in the event of a large scale settlement being created on the airfield. Car commuting by new residents will create traffic congestion, air and noise pollution, thereby blighting the area for tourists and residents, with adverse impacts for the local economy and environment.

Yes

ID sylw: 101778

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Stratford-on-Avon Town Council

Stratford-upon-Avon Town Council supports the approach laid out.

No

ID sylw: 101809

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Grevayne Properties Limited

Asiant : The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

We fail to understand why some of the specific new settlement locations have been chosen and how disconnected they are from the Stage 1 and 2 Call for Sites exercises. We would also question the integrity of inviting further Call for Sites submissions where none were previously submitted.

Our client's proposed development of Site 490 at Baddesley Clinton and Site 491 at Harbury utilise sites already identified through the Call for Sites and supported through the Part B HELAA that are available for development in the short term.

Other

ID sylw: 101844

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Savills (UK) Ltd

Creating a new standalone settlement of 6000+ homes is extremely challenging due to the required infrastructure and associated costs. There is a commercial Catch-22 since much infrastructure must be provided up-front for sustainable growth. New residents are required to sustain the infrastructure but without infrastructure sales rates will be lower. This impacts viability.

This is illustrated by Meon Vale which was acquired in 2004, allocated in the July 2006 Local Plan Review, received a first planning permission for 500 in 2010, and 550 further homes in 2015. Adopted allocation to completion of 1,050 homes has taken almost 20 years.

See our representations for Section 4.5 for further comments where we explain how these challenges can be overcome and the clear sustainability merits of focusing strategic development on large sites well-related to existing settlements. Land at Welsh Road and Daventry Road, Southam can deliver 1,500 homes in the plan period and the HELAA B indicates it outperforms all but one of the 1,000+ home locations. This is partly because residents would have immediate access to existing services and facilities.

Other

ID sylw: 101853

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Joseph Dimambro-Denson

While I generally disagree with the policy of creating new settlements in the middle of nowhere with no sustainable transport connections, I am for further developing smaller existing settlements particularly those with good sustainable transport links that can be used as a first choice such as site B1. Or places where an existing community exists where a new housing growth area can be used to provide more local facilities to reduce car journeys in line with 15 minute city or 20 minute neighbourhood principles.

Other

ID sylw: 101868

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Sarah Brooke-Taylor

Larger new settlements would be preferred (c.3000 homes) to stimulate the local economy (creating jobs, attracting businesses), improve infrastructure, and provide more affordable living options with better living standards for residents. Some of the suggested locations offer more opportunities than others, being more or less well connected to local services.

New settlements offer the opportunity to design well-planned communities to include energy-efficient buildings, green spaces, and sustainable transport, providing rewarding and sustainable places to live. The benefit to, and impact on, current residents has to be weighed very carefully, and certainly not to the detriment of existing well-established rural communities.

No

ID sylw: 101892

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Philip Alton

The analysis supporting this proposal is fundamentally flawed. Development should be focussed on brownfield sites rather than taking green belt countryside. I take issue with the assertion that this level of new housing provision is required. It is not required for local people and, instead, will attract people from outside of the area. This should not be a priority for the Council - in fact it constitutes an abuse of power. It will reduce the quality of life of residents, both during and after any development phase. These proposals completely lose sight of this fact.

Other

ID sylw: 101991

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Savills (UK) Ltd

We agree that sustainable development on brownfield land should be maximised before development on greenfield land is proposed.

However, not all brownfield land will be suitable for residential development. These reasons may not be known during plan-making particularly if they relate to contamination or ground condition. In some cases demolition and remediation costs may make a site unviable entirely or reduce viability such that it cannot contribute fully to infrastructure or affordable housing. Available brownfield land may also be suitable for a range of uses other than housing. "Suitable, viable and" should therefore be inserted before "available" in the description of the spatial hierarchy and calculation of capacity from such land and its contribution towards meeting growth needs must be pragmatic and cautious.

We agree with concentrating greenfield development in fewer, larger areas of strategic growth, which is compliant with NPPF Paragraph 77, while noting there is an important role for smaller-scale development to meet localised housing needs in various settlements within South Warwickshire. Large strategic sites are well placed to deliver significant growth alongside and in conjunction with supporting infrastructure. We expand on this elsewhere in our representations on Land at Welsh Road and Daventry Road, Southam.