No

ID sylw: 104582

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Ruth McCormack

Greenbelt was set up to prevent urban sprawl. There are other suitable sites outside the greenbelt.

No

ID sylw: 104661

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Kay Williams

These are not exceptional circumstances! Nothing about this justifies you building on green belt land. Please protect future generations access to nature, prevent urban sprawl and preserve the beautiful rural character of Warwickshire.

Other

ID sylw: 104679

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Ian Dunning

I don't care about the green belt. People need somewhere to live.
But if you built high density, we wouldn't need to build over so much of it.
Stop building sprawling car-dependent suburbia.

NO detached homes. NO semis.

Build large townhouses and apartment buildings and you won't need to build over green belt.

Yes

ID sylw: 104733

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Susan Ingleby

I agree with the approach, but it doesn't seem to me that you are applying the 5 purposes of Green Belt to the proposed building sites SG05 and SG06.

Yes

ID sylw: 104743

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Stratford-on-Avon Town Council

The Greenbelt is vital to maintaining the character of the land around Stratford, and indeed in Warwickshire generally, and must be preserved at all costs.

Other

ID sylw: 104789

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Fern Arnold

The 5 purposes of green belt are so important and I agree with them. I'm concerned about the exceptional circumstances becoming a regular occurrence. There needs to be some really strict guidelines that are kept in both Warwick and Stratford district and consultation with the community

No

ID sylw: 104798

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Joe Rukin

You seem to have ignored Section 13 of the NPPF and are claiming sites being 'sustainable' means that 'exceptional circumstances' exist when they don't.

You could achieve almost double the to be found target by 2050 without touching any Green belt at all.

Your criteria for declaring a site as sustainable seems to be ranking sites not by which is the most sustainable, but which is the least unsustainable.

The Sustainability Appraisal is fundamentally flawed as are the HELAA weightings given to Green Belt.

And you've just ignored the existence of HS2.

No

ID sylw: 104912

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Elizabeth Heath

I believe we should prioritize brownfield and non-green belt sites before considering green belt land for development. There are enough sustainable non-green belt sites to meet our housing needs, so there's no need to encroach on green belt land.
When reviewing green belt sites, we must carefully consider their role in not only preventing urban sprawl, such as between Kenilworth and Coventry. We should also avoid extending Kenilworth into the countryside and closing gaps between villages and Warwick. The quality of green belt land, including its openness, landscape character, and biodiversity, is crucial and must be preserved.

No

ID sylw: 104940

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Stratford upon Avon District Council

n/a

No

ID sylw: 105004

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Charlotte Holme

Not enough is done to protect vital areas of green belt from large development. It suits councils to ignore green belt designation to allow inappropriate large scale development, presumably due to some financial incentive or other, but if someone wants to put up a field shelter or a garage or build a new single dwelling on green belt land then it disallowed.

No

ID sylw: 105038

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Anthony Lewenz

Considering Cubbington not as a separate settlement from Leamington is incorrect.

No

ID sylw: 105050

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Prof Suzy Moat

I am very concerned about what appear to be obvious flaws in the recent Green Belt review. The Local Plan's own Sustainability Appraisal shows that Strategic Growth Locations that are not in the Green Belt have capacity for 48,500 dwellings, well in excess of the 30,000 additional new dwellings that the Local Plan needs to make provision for. WIth the current deficits in arguments for building on Green Belt land, focusing on these sites outside of the Green Belt is clearly the much more convincing option.

Yes

ID sylw: 105100

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: St Philips

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

Green Belt boundaries should only be altered under exceptional circumstances, as outlined in the NPPF. South Warwickshire lacks sufficient brownfield land and optimising densities is unlikely to meet housing needs, indicating such circumstances exist. The site at Brickyard Lane was assessed in the Green Belt Review and deemed to have a moderate overall contribution to Green Belt purposes. St Philips argue that this site should be considered 'Grey Belt' due to its lower performance against Green Belt purposes, and its location near essential services makes it suitable for development. Prioritising this site aligns with the NPPF's guidance.

Other

ID sylw: 105139

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Miss Elvina Pittaway

I strongly oppose further development in the greenbelt, as there are sufficient alternative options available. I am also concerned that HS2 is not included in Figures 5 and 6, despite being a significant landscape feature during the plan's duration. HS2 acts as a permanent barrier north of Leamington, and any greenbelt development beyond it could lead to its rapid erosion of the greenbelt. I believe the "priority area" in Figure 5 should be redefined to use the HS2 route as the northern boundary for the area north of Leamington.

No

ID sylw: 105194

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: R Birla

I believe South Warwickshire's housing needs can be met without building on green belt land, as there is sufficient capacity for 54,500 dwellings in strategic growth locations and new settlements outside the green belt. SG06 is not a sustainable location, being too far from key transport hubs, which would likely increase car usage. The green belt around North Leamington serves essential purposes, and the Green Belt Review has significant flaws. Additionally, SG06 comprises high-quality agricultural land crucial for food security. Previous decisions by the Planning Inspector further support maintaining the green belt.

No

ID sylw: 105269

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Lockley Homes

Asiant : Goldfinch Town Planning Services (West Midlands)

We are concerned that designated Green Belt locations are being prioritised for new housing developments, while more sustainable options outside the Green Belt, such as the Lockley Homes site, are being ignored. This approach contradicts the Revised NPPF (December 2024) guidelines, which emphasise the importance of using brownfield and underutilised land first. Lockley Homes presents a sustainable site that should be prioritised for development. The Councils' refusal to adopt more sustainable development patterns undermines the soundness and legal compliance of the emerging Local Plan Review, jeopardising its effectiveness in future examinations.

No

ID sylw: 105352

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs philippa jamie

In response to the SWLP consultation I would like you to take my thoughts into consideration


1) I am very strongly against any further development on the greenbelt. There are a large number of options for development in the greenbelt that have currently been put forward and would be available for development if needed, so certainly no new developments are required! the greenbelt is essential to be respected, to keep the integrity of our unique villages etc and for the mental wellbeing of people to have green spaces easily accessible. We need land for food production, more now than ever in this unsafe world, we should be as self reliant as possible and not have to rely on imports from other countries.

2) In planning terms HS2 forms a hard landscape feature, and permanent solid barrier to the north of Leamington. Therefore it is important that development in the greenbelt does not extend over this barrier as it will result in rapid erosion of the greenbelt between Leamington and Coventry, which is already heavily under pressure. The HS2 route should form the northernmost boundary of the priority area to the North of Leamington.

Other

ID sylw: 105949

Derbyniwyd: 15/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Amanda Bradshaw

I strongly support avoiding any further development within the greenbelt. There are already a large number of options for development in the greenbelt that have currently been put forward in the strategic options. and would be available for development if needed, no new strategic growth options in the greenbelt should be added to this.

Other

ID sylw: 105958

Derbyniwyd: 18/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Rachel Walmsley

As noted in my previous response, I feel strongly that further development on greenbelt land should be avoided at all costs. There are a large number of options for development in the greenbelt that have currently been put forward and would be available for development if needed, but no new strategic growth options should be added to this.

Finally as noted previously, the Climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land. This is a weak and bizarre argument. Why do something to make it worse? There are other ways of mitigating against the climate emergency without developing on greenbelt land, which itself is truly harmful.

Other

ID sylw: 106194

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Acres Land & Planning

Now that the Government has changed the policy position on green belts, it is important to build on the Stage 1 Warwickshire Green Belt Review to deliver a Stage 2 Green belt Review to look at the new criteria for changing green belt boundaries and providing some ‘grey belt’ sites in villages which do not serve the key purposes of GB – such as coalescence, preventing urban sprawl and protecting historic towns. This should set the context for the release of some smaller sites in villages, such as Offchurch, where the green belt doesn’t serve a green belt purpose.

Yes

ID sylw: 106367

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: West Midlands Housing Association Planning Consortium

Asiant : Tetlow King Planning

The WMHAPC welcomes the Council’s approach in considering a balanced combination of Green Belt
land and brownfield land to accommodate its housing needs.
The Council will be preparing a Stage 2 Green Belt review and acknowledges that 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.” It is positive to read that the Councils intend on assessing the Green Belt to identify whether there is
potential available “Grey Belt” land, which relates to areas of Green Belt which are previously developed or otherwise making a limited contribution to the five purposes of Green Belt. Furthermore, the SWLP intends to review villages that are currently included in the Green Belt and decide if any of them should be taken out as well as assessing if the built-up parts of these villages. This is welcomed by the WMHAPC as it will help to enable to Council to allocate appropriate sites for development and to
maximise the delivery of housing throughout the plan period.

Yes

ID sylw: 106570

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Edward Muntz

Asiant : Sworders

We support the recognition that some Green Belt release may be required to accommodate South Warwickshire’s housing and employment land needs. Given the standard method calculation for the minimum number of homes needed is almost an 82% increase on the housing figure calculated using the HEDNA method (notwithstanding any increase when applying a suitable buffer or accommodating any unmet need from neighbouring authorities as previously mentioned), it is considered that Green Belt release will need to form part of the SWLP strategy.

Other

ID sylw: 106590

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: The Umberslade Estate

We support the recognition that some Green Belt release may be required to accommodate South Warwickshire’s housing and employment land needs. Given the standard method calculation for the minimum number of homes needed is almost an 82% increase on the housing figure calculated using the HEDNA method (notwithstanding any increase when applying a suitable buffer or accommodating any unmet need from neighbouring authorities as previously mentioned), it is considered that Green Belt release will need to form part of the SWLP strategy.

Yes

ID sylw: 106622

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mac Mic Group

Asiant : McLoughlin Planning

As set out previously within these Representations, it is in our view imperative that the SWLP deals head on with the fact that the release of existing Green Belt land will be required to meet development needs over the Plan period. Such a case is not made clearly at section 4.9, and we strongly recommend that this is remedied in the forthcoming Regulation 19 Consultation draft of the Plan.
We support the recognition at Section 4.9 that “Some of South Warwickshire’s most sustainable locations fall within the Green Belt. For example, all of our train stations are either in or close to the Green Belt. This means that in order to deliver a truly sustainable pattern of growth, the SWLP needs to consider all options, including Green Belt options”. This was a point made in our previous representations and reflects the direction of travel contained within Government rhetoric regarding Green Belt land including the statement from the Deputy Prime Minister that: “a Green Belt designed for England in the middle of the twentieth century now must be updated for an England in the middle of the twenty first. The Green Belt today accounts for more land in England than land that is developed – around 13% compared to 10%. Yet as many assessments show, large areas of the Green Belt have little ecological value and are inaccessible to the public”

Yes

ID sylw: 106644

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Warwickshire Property and Development Group

Asiant : Framptons

In principle, the proposed sequential approach to allocating strategic growth locations and any new settlement within the SWLP is supported.
Any development in Green Belt should only be justified if further evidence indicates that non-Green Belt locations are less sustainable, and other evidence is presented which demonstrates that they are viable and deliverable; these being particularly important consideration for new settlements and strategic growth locations that are dependent on major new infrastructure first being available to un-lock the sites and /or make them sustainable e.g. provision of a new train station.

Other

ID sylw: 106769

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: ms louisa graham

Any land taken out of green belt is inappropriate and will set a future precedent for using green belt for all future development to use green belt.

Other

ID sylw: 106782

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr John Clark

The impact of HS2 seems to have been entirely ignored in the green belt study. This can’t be right. HS2 fundamentally changes the green belt.

Other

ID sylw: 107063

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Nuneaton & Bedworth Borough Council

Green Belt

It is acknowledged that parts of South Warwickshire fall within the West Midlands Green Belt. The 24 Strategic Growth Locations and 12 new settlement locations, put forward in the SWLP Preferred Options document, include a mixture of Green Belt and non-Green Belt locations. The outcomes of the Stage 2 Green Belt Review, for the SWLP, will be important in deciding the most appropriate/suitable sites to allocate at Regulation 19, as it will assess the performance of these specific sites and also villages which are currently ‘washed over’ by the Green Belt designation. Furthermore, commissioning a Grey Belt Review may also be an avenue to explore, in relation to the introduction of the Grey Belt in the December 2024 NPPF, to ensure a robust evidence base is prepared to support future South Warwickshire planning decisions and in this plan-making process.

Other

ID sylw: 107119

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr and Mrs Marvelly

Asiant : Sworders

We broadly support the need to release some Green Belt land for housing development in line with paragraph 145 of the NPPF. However, the Stage 1 Green Belt Review is a high level review and not based on site specific considerations.
SG04 lies within BA4 Broad Area 4 which includes west of Kenilworth and the A46. Site 183 lies within KEN9 which has been assessed as making a moderate contribution to the green belt. Whilst we agree that the wider Green Belt around Kenilworth meets the 5 purposes of the Green Belt we would argue that the release
of some of the smaller parcels of land within KEN9 and KEN8 such as site 183 Land South of Rounds Hill would not have any significant impact. As such we believe there is strong argument to release this land (Site 183) from the Green Belt

Other

ID sylw: 107226

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Andrew Sweeney

Asiant : Mrs Eleanor Lovett

This part of the emerging Plan should be reviewed in light of the changes to national policy, prior to the Plan progressing further. Whilst it is acknowledged that the changes were only introduced shortly before the consultation on this draft Plan began, the changes introduce a new requirement to review grey belt when determining appropriate land to release from the Green Belt.
It is strongly contended that the land at Springbrook Lane meets the definition of Grey Belt, as part of the site is currently developed with the equestrian building; whilst it arguably does not contribute to purposes (a), (b), or (d) of the Green Belt. The publication of the Planning Practice Guidance for Grey Belt on the 27 February 2025 specifically identifies that when assessing the impact of proposals on purposes (a), (b), or (d), these only relate to the impact on ‘towns’, not villages. It is argued that this should be a site that is strongly considered in preference to other Green Belt during the plan-making process, and allocated as a small site for development and released from the Green Belt.
It is important that through the emerging SWLP, this is reviewed and in particular, locations near public transport infrastructure that can be considered as Grey Belt sites, are positively considered.