No

ID sylw: 101839

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Simon Walkden

I believe that we should look to protect green belt at all opportunities and optimise brown field sites and look at the potential for new settlements rather than increasing urban expansion.

No

ID sylw: 101849

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kevin Mole

Objection to Draft Policy Direction 7 – Green Belt
1. Misapplication of the Sustainability Argument
Draft Policy Direction 7 proposes using sustainability as a primary criterion for releasing Green Belt land. This approach is fundamentally flawed because:

It reverses the intended purpose of Green Belt policy. The NPPF states that Green Belt land should only be released in "exceptional circumstances," not merely because a site appears to be more sustainable than others.
It disregards the permanence principle. Green Belt boundaries are meant to be long-term and should not be altered for short-term planning justifications.

Yes

ID sylw: 101856

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Miss Anne Page

Particularly SG04 South of Kenilworth Group
Only in very exceptionable circumstances should Green Belt land be used for housing.
Cancelling Green Belt restrictions in the above area is not infilling existing development, it would increase the urban sprawl of Kenilworth without good transport links to the town.
The proposal would nearly join the town with Leek Wootton.
It is important not to affect Kenilworth Castle.
Previously developed land and Grey Belt should be used first, not the easy pickings of Green Belt sites.

Other

ID sylw: 101869

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Grevayne Properties Limited

Asiant : The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

The consultation has been overtaken by events with the advent of the "Grey Belt" in the December 2024 NPPF and should be rerun at a later date taking account of responses. A rerun would enable detailed policy wording to be added.

Notwithstanding, it is clear that an analysis of the purposes of Green Belt for the land identified at Bedlam's End (site ref: 490) for potential development would not contribute strongly to purposes a), b) and d) of Green Belt, and thereby would appear to constitute “Grey Belt” land.

Yes

ID sylw: 101958

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Is it necessary to release some land from the green belt because the infrastructure south of Leamington is already over capacity. Also, to accommodate Coventry and Black Country unmet need, there needs to be housing built closest to these urban areas. Otherwise the pressure on the motorway junctions will increase. It only takes one accident on the motorway or major road across Warwick and Leamington for the entire area to be gridlocked for hours.

No

ID sylw: 102066

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Rough Hill Rare Breeds Ltd

Asiant : RCA Regeneration

This policy needs to be reviewed in light of the amendments to the NPPF in December 2024, specifically with regards to Grey Belt land. The Stage 1 Green Belt review should be rerun to identify land that should now been released from the Green Belt. The Stage 2 Green Belt Review should be prioritised to assess all HELAA sites and review the allocations accordingly.

We do not support the designation of safeguarded land - if land is suitable for development then it should be released from the Green Belt.

We object to the designation of any new Green Belt land.

No

ID sylw: 102081

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Philip Alton

The Council sees green belt as a challenge to be overcome rather than as an imoprtant means of protecting the environment, the character of the area. It does niot value the amenity which green belt provides and which is so important to many residents. Where development on green belt land has taken place it has represented a licence to the national housebuilders to destroy the environment and replace it with standard "executiive" homes, most of which are unaffordable for local residents. Examples include the felling of mature trees at Hatton Park and the inappropriate housing being built at Union View.

No

ID sylw: 102110

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: BDW Trading Limited

Asiant : Knight Frank LLP

The Stage 1 GBR identified the need for a subsequent Stage 2 GBR to perform detailed, site-specific assessments. This upcoming review will need to consider the 2024 NPPF's definition of "grey belt" (Annex 2 NPPF). Local policies concerning the Green Belt should align with NPPF provisions, supporting the hierarchical prioritisation of PDL and grey belt when assessing potential site allocations and Green Belt boundary adjustments with regard to locational sustainability.
The initial GBR assessed the Cophams Hill site within parcels STR1 and STR2, finding it made no contribution to three of the purposes, therefore considered to be grey belt.

Yes

ID sylw: 102139

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Doug Wallace

N/A

Other

ID sylw: 102156

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Sue Cole

Some of the SWLP proposals contradict the 5 overarching purposes of the Green Belt as set out in the latest Government policy 27/3/25 in particular preventing neighbouring towns merging with each other and preserving the setting and special character of historic towns.

Green Belt designation on the south side of the the M42, in particular surrounding Baddersley Clinton and Packwood and along the Grand Union and Stratford on Avon canals, checks urban sprawl of the west Midlands conurbation and acts as a green lung. Wildlife corridors promote ecology and biodiversity and the open aspect promotes wellbeing and leisure activities.

Other

ID sylw: 102173

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Hallam Land

Asiant : LRM Planning

At settlements where there is both potential development land that is outside of the Green Belt designation and other land that is subject to it, the practical application of NPPF §146 is to favour development being located on the former as a first principle.

No

ID sylw: 102192

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr George Taylor

There is sufficient land not in the Green Belt to meet all the housing that is needed for South Warwickshire. No further analysis is required. The current boundaries should not be changed. Should the planners decide that this is not the case then it is essential that anywhere where the Green Belt boundary is moved that it is to a major natural (e.g. large river) or man-made (e.g. main road) boundary in order to prevent further outward spread of any housing development.

No

ID sylw: 102228

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Jennie Lunt

I agree with the draft policy wording around a sequential approach to allocating strategic areas of growth and new settlements. However, I believe that the SWLP should seek to not only look at clear sustainability benefits before releasing any green belt but should exhaust all other avenues such as vacant property or underoccupied housing before justifying development on green belt land.

No

ID sylw: 102229

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Edward Lunt

I agree with the draft policy wording around a sequential approach to allocating strategic areas of growth and new settlements. However I believe that SWLP should not only look at clear sutainability benefits before releasing Green Belt but should also exhaust all other avenues including unoccupied and under-occupied properties and sites before releasing Green Belt.

Other

ID sylw: 102240

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land

Asiant : Turley

Comments in relation to locating development in the most sustainable locations

No

ID sylw: 102267

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Jenny Bevan

There must be exceptional circumstances to justify the inclusion of Green Belt land into the SWLP and no justification has been put forward in the SWLP. Until such justification has been put forward no development in the Green Belt should take place.

No

ID sylw: 102274

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr David Brown

I DO NOT agree with the approach to repurposing Green Belt land in draft policy 7. Green belt limits urban sprawl and the joining of adjacent communities. After Brownfield sites have been considered, it is important that non-green belt sites should be considered for development. There are sufficient non green belt sites available to meet the remaining housing need without using precious green belt land. The quality of the green belt sites needs to be considered in its ability to limit urban sprawl example SG04 would risk the merger of Leek Wooten and Kenilworth in the future

No

ID sylw: 102282

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Deeley Homes Ltd

Asiant : RCA Regeneration

This policy needs to be reviewed in light of the amendments to the NPPF in December 2024.
The Stage 1 Green Belt review should be rerun to identify Grey Belt land.
The Stage 2 Green Belt Review should be prioritised to assess all HELAA sites and review the allocations.
Green Belt villages should be reviewed as a priority, with villages removed from the Green Belt and suitable development boundaries identified to show the land available for future development.
We do not support the designation of safeguarded land.
We object to the designation of any new Green Belt land.

No

ID sylw: 102288

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Holly Chenu

I disagree that exceptional circumstances exist to justify the use of local green belt for residential development, particularly for new settlements B2 Land at Hatton and C1 Land south of Kingswood and infill sites in Lapworth. The proximity to a train station where trains run every two hours (Lapworth, Hatton) does not mean that future residents could rely on this service for all or even the majority of their transport needs. Residents would need cars so the traffic congestion and climate emissions created by building houses in these locations would be greater than those created on non-green belt sites

Yes

ID sylw: 102317

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Richborough

Asiant : Marrons

b. Richborough consider there would be negative consequences for sustainable development if all development was channelled to locations outside the Green Belt, and in accordance with paragraph 148 of the NPPF the need to promote sustainable patterns of development is paramount.

Draft Policy Direction 7 states “…if there are clear sustainability benefits to utilising one or more Green Belt locations, then this will form the basis of an argument that "exceptional circumstances" exist to justify releasing that land from the Green Belt”

Richborough agree there are exceptional circumstances to warrant the release of Green Belt land.

Other

ID sylw: 102426

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Hill Residential

Asiant : Turley

Hill Residential supports policy, with comments. As demonstrated by our response to Table 6 and proposed new settlement location B1 ‘Land at Hatton’, there are no significant constraints to the delivery of ‘Hatton Villages’ which cannot be overcome, and the ‘Hatton Villages’ site (part of the wider B1 area) is the most sustainable location for new settlement scale growth across the SWLP and should be proposed for allocation.

Other

ID sylw: 102490

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Deeley Homes Dean Weldon

This policy needs to be reviewed in light of the amendments to the NPPF in December 2024, specifically with regards to Grey Belt land. Grey Belt land around settlements should be identified for release for development. Settlement boundaries should be amended to show sufficient suitable land to accommodate future growth and to help support future Neighbourhood Plan allocations.

No

ID sylw: 102492

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Dr Diana Taulbut

"However, if there are sustainability benefits to utilising one or more Green Belt locations"...makes no sense at all. Sustainabilibility doesn't mean building houses to meet housing need. It means balancing needs and demands in order ot meet current and future needs - economic, social and environmental. So whilst Green Belt is being judged against its 5 criteria, it should also be judged against the needs for wildlife, food security issues such as agricultural land quality, unspoilst recreational areas, access to countryside, landscape and topology for ourselves and for future generations.

Other

ID sylw: 102522

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: IM Land 1 Limited

Asiant : Turley

Prior to the Regulation 19 consultation, the evidence base must incorporate and thoroughly address the significant updates to Green Belt policy so the plan can be found ‘sound’ and compliant with national policy. More detailed, site specific, assessment work is anticipated to inform later stages of plan making, with stage 2 of the Green Belt Review will assess the performance of specific sites, where these are being considered for development. This should include the Land off Rumbush Lane, Earlswood (ID ref: 179).

No

ID sylw: 102542

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Carl Barthorpe

No I dont agree, green belt needs to stay to protect boundaries and nature.

Yes

ID sylw: 102563

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Jaguar Land Rover

Asiant : Marrons

JLR appreciate the requirement in Paragraph 147 of the NPPF that all other reasonable options for meeting Council’s identified needs are examined before exceptional circumstances exist to justify changes to Green Belt boundaries. However, the circumstances in relation to Fen End are unique in that this is an existing operational site and JLR have a need to have flexibility to expand its operations on the site for future development needs, if required. JLR would be happy to provide further details as to its proposals and what built form it would require to make effective use of the Site.

Yes

ID sylw: 102568

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Penelope Beswick

The approach seems sound but urban brownfield and non -green belt locations should be prioritised for development before Green Belt land is even considered for release.

Other

ID sylw: 102620

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Summix Planning Limited

Clarifications to the strong exiting linkages to the town and railway station should be more accurately outlined in the review. The overall conclusion of moderate impact is consistent with all sites around Henley. It therefore does not appear consistent to plan for the removal of two sites and not HEN6 when HEN6 affords the best option to connect to the station and should also be removed from the Green Belt to enable a comprehensive approach to the planning of Henley.

No

ID sylw: 102669

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Matthew Newson

I cannot fully support Draft Policy Direction 7 as it risks weakening the five purposes of the Green Belt. The policy’s focus on potential Green Belt releases, even under "exceptional circumstances," threatens the protection of rural towns, villages, and the surrounding countryside from over-development. The Green Belt’s role in preventing urban sprawl, preserving the character of historic towns, and safeguarding the countryside must remain paramount. Any development within or adjacent to the Green Belt should prioritise brownfield and "Grey Belt" sites, ensuring rural areas are protected from erosion of their unique character and open landscapes.

Other

ID sylw: 102782

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: The Ragley Estate

Asiant : Stansgate Planning

This approach, and the allocation of sustainable sites within the Green Belt in Stratford and Warwick Districts to meet future development needs, is strongly supported.
That notwithstanding, the SWLP Preferred Options does not currently conform to national planning policy and must be redrafted to reflect the guidance in the PPG on Green Belt, published on 27 February 2025. In particular this requires Councils not only to assess Green Belt but also to identify what land within the Green Belt is grey belt, and to prioritise the allocation of grey belt sites ahead of other Green Belt land.