No

ID sylw: 87885

Derbyniwyd: 12/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Nicholas Sears

the green belt is the green belt

No

ID sylw: 87896

Derbyniwyd: 12/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Tracy Pullee

Using land that is protected when there are other options available.
Pollution.

Other

ID sylw: 87957

Derbyniwyd: 13/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Salford Priors Parish Council

1. SWLP must fully reflect the significant changes introduced in the 2024 NPPF, particularly the new concept of "Grey Belt" land.
2. While the reclassification of certain Green Belt land may provide flexibility for development, it is essential that this does not lead to an automatic presumption in favour of development.
3. SWLP must continue to uphold the fundamental principles of Green Belt policy—preventing urban sprawl, protecting the countryside, and encouraging regeneration of brownfield sites within urban areas first.
4. SWLP to direct growth to the most sustainable locations while maintaining the integrity of the wider Green Belt.

No

ID sylw: 88044

Derbyniwyd: 13/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Sharon Quantrill

No - no village should be considered for large scale development if they are in greenbelt and especially if they have conservation areas within their village as well. There is a reason that greenbelt was created in the first place.

No

ID sylw: 88045

Derbyniwyd: 13/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Simon Quantrill

Developments should not be built on green belt land. They were allocated green belt for a reason. Building on green belt will lead to urban sprawl and change the character of our countryside and indeed our country.

No

ID sylw: 88068

Derbyniwyd: 13/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Jeanette Ray

I do not agree with any building work on green belt land.

No

ID sylw: 88151

Derbyniwyd: 13/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Anne Parry

Where possible Green Belt areas must be protected to avoid urbanisation creep.

Other

ID sylw: 88295

Derbyniwyd: 15/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr John Tristram

At first sight the stated strategy for the Green Belt seems clear, but the proposed development of land north east of Henley in Arden and the ribbon development of land between Bearley and Wilmcote seems to be in direct conflict with the policy. Both developments encroach on the designated green belt. In both cases they will totally change and destroy the local environs, cause significant increases in road traffic, overload local services, increase the probability of regular flooding and lead to Bearley and Wilmcote losing their individual identities and being swallowed up by the ever expanding town of Stratford upon Avon, all in direct opposition of the stated aim of the green belt.

No

ID sylw: 88329

Derbyniwyd: 15/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Jerry, Bev and Megan McDonagh

Why are you once again targeting green belt land when there are sites that are not green belt?
I am particularly concerned about the creep towards Leamington and Kenilworth joining up.
These are historic individual towns that form the fabric of England as we used to know it and need to be kept seperated
Carry on like this and the towns will become part of greater Coventry if you infill the last few fields between Kenilworth and Coventry

No

ID sylw: 88358

Derbyniwyd: 15/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr richard madder

This plan flies in the face of the intention of the greenbelt, it will allow Coventry to gradually merge into Kenilworth and despoils significant areas of countryside if not checked.

Similarly Leamington and Kenilworth are beginning to creep towards each other over greenbelt and Warwick is absolutely assailed by proposed sites.

It is my view any development in the green belt must be restricted to remain inside existing urban areas.

No

ID sylw: 88377

Derbyniwyd: 15/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Maurice Stokes

The Bearley/Wilmcote site is on Green belt and any such development should not be considered as viable. There are plenty of Brown field infill areas within the Stratford upon Avon zone perfectly suitable for consideration. Any green belt development should be for recreation, nature enhancement and biodiversity offset.

No

ID sylw: 88385

Derbyniwyd: 15/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Annette Pharo

The proposed site at Wilmcote is greenbelt and will join it to Bearley which goes against the whole intent of greenbelt sites. The small area of land towards Stratford on avon will then be infilled and the whole area will become an urban sprawl, devastating an important historical and cultural area of England.
Any use of greenbelt should only be to enhance our natural environment for the benefit of nature and people's access to the countryside.

Other

ID sylw: 88390

Derbyniwyd: 15/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Barrie Hayles

The maintenance of green space between towns and villages is important to the quality of life for all residents and already far too much agricultural land has been lost to development in South Warwickshire. The character and historic importance of towns like Warwick/Leamington and Stratford is badly impacted when over-development is permitted. A strong defence is needed to retain and preserve the green areas which surround our towns and villages helping to ensure the important character of these places is not lost forever.

No

ID sylw: 88391

Derbyniwyd: 15/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Cécile NURIT

we don't want new buildings in the green belt. No exceptions.
MORE, MORE, MORE WILDLIFE. That's what we want. Save nature, not artificialise it.

Other

ID sylw: 88443

Derbyniwyd: 15/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr A Patrick

Green belt land is designated for good reason. Although I wouldn't regard it as inviolate I agree very much with the attached assessment.

Yes

ID sylw: 88555

Derbyniwyd: 16/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Sidney Syson

This is a hard one given there are only 14 Green Belts in England and they deserve special protection. We hapen to have one but at the same time have huge development pressures so there will need to be a sensible review.

Other

ID sylw: 88640

Derbyniwyd: 17/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Ida Marjorie Brown

Green belt is an emotive subject. I believe the policy is ok in parts but vague and open to interpretation and challenge.

From a housing/ employment perspective I favour new site developments; examples of sites BW,B1, A1, A2, G1 and E1 as the necessary infrastructure, services and new communities can be built.

Do not favour "bolt on" developments and destruction of an Historic Town such as the proposal for SG23 which sits between A1, A2, B1 and BW. SG23, as an example is better suited to infill / expansion of surrounding areas as I expressed in my comments in SG23.

No

ID sylw: 88674

Derbyniwyd: 17/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Gillian Browne

I object to SG01 on the grounds that it is green belt land and one of the purposes of green belt land, as per the government's own guidelines, it that it should be used to provide a gap between conurbations. Building on this land will remove the space between Coventry and Kenilworth.
In addition, the wildlife has already been disrupted by the building of HS2, do we need to remove even more habitats and thus displace more creatures?

No

ID sylw: 88699

Derbyniwyd: 17/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Gill Kirkham

The green belt is VITAL for many reasons...mental health, growing food and separation from Coventry.

No

ID sylw: 88741

Derbyniwyd: 17/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Jerry Corless

Green belt land is an asset. that should be protected and there several empty/derelict properties and areas of land that should be used before tampering with the green belt.
Developers holding onto land which is not being developed need to be forced to carry out development or the land should be confiscated before using green belt land.

Other

ID sylw: 88793

Derbyniwyd: 17/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Miss Erin Williams

Green belt should have much greater importance in decisions where to allocate housing and employment land to sensibly address these points. Of course, the council needs to distinguish between grey belt and other green belt land. The value of the towns and spaces is heavily tied to the green spaces that we have, and this link can not be jepodised.

No

ID sylw: 88973

Derbyniwyd: 19/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Gail Marie Eynon

1. small villages swept aside without the thought of local people just because they are elderly.
2. churches and local facilities lost to a concrete jungle. What about local knowledge, local history
3. Government policy is against Green belt being used in the first instance
4. Urban sprawl
5. Hatton and local villages will be merged with Warwick and Stratford with no boundaries.

Yes

ID sylw: 89009

Derbyniwyd: 19/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Stratford upon Avon District Council

In view of the scale of the development we are being forced to accommodate the preservation of the green belt cannot be regarded as an overriding consideration. If that is done there will be unacceptable pressure on the area of the plan immediately to the south of the green belt

No

ID sylw: 89117

Derbyniwyd: 19/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Sara Bird

I strongly feel that green belt should not be released and should be protected from urban sprawl. These vital areas were allocated to make sure the balance of green space and urban development was kept in check.
Without the green belt we stand to lose essential farm land and access to our open countryside that makes our county so attractive both to live and visit. We would forever change that vista and lose the buffer it creates against environmental pollution, not to mention the destruction of wildlife habitats and recreational areas.

No

ID sylw: 89136

Derbyniwyd: 19/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Tanworth Residents Association

The Stage 2 Review process needs to be clearly "Green Belt Last".
It also will need to distinguish between Green Belt in sensitive areas where there are large predators nearby and the avoidance of urban sprawl is paramount and those areas where special character or safeguarding the countryside are the most important considerations.

No

ID sylw: 89199

Derbyniwyd: 19/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Suzanna Hughes

Green Belt land should be preserved and not considered for development while brownfield sites are still available. Protecting it is essential to preventing urban sprawl. To meet housing targets without overwhelming current infrastructure, new settlements are a better alternative. The Clopton Quarter, part of SG18 near the Welcombe Hills, should remain safeguarded from development in line with South Warwickshire’s key principles of maintaining its scenic landscape, rich biodiversity, and environmental sustainability.

No

ID sylw: 89245

Derbyniwyd: 19/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Miss Maria Smith

Please don’t build anything more around Stratford, there is not enough space to accommodate residents let alone the tourists. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should

No

ID sylw: 89442

Derbyniwyd: 20/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Carolyn Lindsay

We understand that B1 Hatton station (4.9) has been identified as a preferred option site.
It is at the top of a hill and the gradients have been averaged out fields and station road Hatton already floods.
All railways are at capacity Hatton station not enough parking or train capacity to required destinations.
Not viable road infrastructure over canal and railway bridge and connecting narrow country lanes.
New residents will commute to work by car increasing current road congestion onto the A4177 and the A46
green belt needs to be saved to stop the urban sprawl

No

ID sylw: 89454

Derbyniwyd: 20/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Helen Lakin

Greenbelt should be protected at all costs. Once 'exceptions' start to be given to build on Green Belt land it will open up the opportunity for all manner of requests for exceptions and gradually it will erode our Green Belt altogether. If it adjoins non-Greenbelt land, that should not then be considered ok as an exception to extend and build because it will always at some point adjoin non-Greenbelt land somewhere! There should be no justification to defile our Green Belt when brownfield sites remain undeveloped everywhere and should be the first consideration for new housing.

No

ID sylw: 89489

Derbyniwyd: 20/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr jeffrey lindsay

1400+ acres of permanent loss of productive farmland and destruction of Green Belt!! With regard to the proposed new settlement at Hatton:
Junction improvements would be needed for A4177, B4439 (Dark Lane) & Station Road from A4189. Dark Lane, Norton Curlieu Lane & Station Road essentially single road as two cars barely able to pass each other. Access to Railway at Hatton Station would not be greatly suitable for pedestrians/cyclists, cars, let alone buses, & very small car park - and two platforms only accessible by footbridge! Two new canal bridges would be needed for access - or single-way 'traffic-lights'.