No

ID sylw: 93614

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Jon Redhead

Every possible decision that may require Green Belt land being considered as "fair game" for development must be a desperate "last ditch" one. Green Belt has remained as a sacred part of England's Green and pleasant land, that needs protecting for future generations to enjoy, for what it is: The clean lungs of Britain. If population growth continuing as it is on our already most crowded country in Europe continues at present levels, then there is little point in using words like 'sustainable', 'carbon neutral', carbon footprint' as viable reasons to encourage more housing. Where does the building stop?

No

ID sylw: 93658

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Claire STEWART

I strongly oppose Policy Direction 7. Green belt land should be protected, especially when brownfield sites are available for development. Safeguarding green belts prevents urban sprawl and protects the natural environment. New settlements offer a more sustainable solution, meeting housing needs without overloading existing infrastructure. Developing the Clopton Quarter goes against South Warwickshire’s "overarching principles" and should be permanently protected. Allowing construction here risks setting a harmful precedent for future developments. This policy must be rejected in favour of strategic planning that prioritizes brownfield redevelopment and preserves essential green spaces for future generations.

No

ID sylw: 93698

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Martin Smith

Warwick DC has vigorously defended the existing green belt, often absurdly with regard to some minor applications, but it has to be repeated what the function of the green belt is, to prevent urban creep and to retain the rural nature of settlements within their settings. The Green Belt should not be sacrificed for policy gain, after all if the land had already been allocated to a use then it could not be redesignated.

No

ID sylw: 93717

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr John Archer

Greenbelt needs to be saved for those who wish to experience the countryside on thier doorstep.
Unfortunatly our greenbelt is already being gobbled up & lacks infrastructure to cope with those who already travel to the Lapworth area for leisure purposes. Today (sunny sunday 2nd Mar) I observed chaos at Baddersely & junction of Rising/Mill Lane/ Chessetts Wood Rd. Horses, walkers, cyclists, car & many parked cars trying to use the same stretch of country lanes. We can't cope now, how will we without improving SIGNIFICANTLY the road network.

No

ID sylw: 93727

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr George Power

Greenbelt land should not be considered when brown belt land is available and more appropriate. Greenbelt was introduced for very good reasons; safeguarding against unchecked urban sprawl and to ignore it and build negates years of protection. New settlements should be considered preferable over growing already strained towns. You cannot advertise south Warwickshire as biodiverse whilst systematically destroying the protections in place to keep it biodiverse.

Yes

ID sylw: 93784

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr William Campbell

agree in principle

Other

ID sylw: 93789

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Warwick District Green Party

-The Green Belt in Warwick district is vital “to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas” from the Coventry conurbation.
-Any sites that are justified on location near railway stations need evidence that there is sufficient capacity before final decisions are made.
-More attention to the opportunity cost of high-performing agricultural land.
-The new NPPF makes it easier to select Green Belt land, but requires 50+% social/affordable housing. This will make Green Belt sites less attractive to developers, and so there is a danger that they will not be developed, rendering the local plan ineffective.

No

ID sylw: 93790

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Zbigniew Franczuk

No green belt should be considered if not all brownfield is built on first
No new built on Clopton Quarter untill the infrastructure around Stratford is properly resolved and this stupid plan putting two lanes to the maybird is properly resolved and this.

No

ID sylw: 93870

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Alan Griffith

BW settlement is basically Ribbon Development on a large scale. Note; Wootton Wowen to Henley in Arden link already developed.
This area has and must remain a green belt zone to maintain Stratford on Avon as a destination.
The Wash over green belt and the green belt area North of Stratford was established to maintain the beauty of the countryside, enjoyed by locals and the West Midlands residents generally. Removing this would only force people to look for the country further south, increasing transport and emissions.
Parishes should update NP to increase housing stock if amendments to green belt occur.

No

ID sylw: 93905

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Carina Taylor

Greenbelt land should be kept for farming. The farmer who has offered the Land for SG21 has found a way of making himself some money, what about future generations for farming, this is vital land. If the farmer says the land is not viable then this is untrue. I walk on the designated footpaths across the land, there are always crops growing.

No

ID sylw: 93911

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr David Brown

I do not agree with the approach laid out in the policy with regards to re-designation of green belt land for housing development.
Many of the areas designated cannot be developed in a sustainable manner and in reality; the net effect of many of the green belt development cited would be detrimental to the quality of life of local residents.

There should be prioritisation of development of brown field sites first to protect the rest of Warwickshire precious countryside

No

ID sylw: 93926

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr David Brown

Brown belt sites should be considered first in order to protect green belt sites. There are sufficient brown field sites in Warwickshire to cover much of the housing requirements for Warwickshire
The use of the word sustainable in discussions of pockets of land such as SG04 south of Kenilworth is clearly a way of circumnavigating the rules around developing on green belt land.
Developing in SG04 could lead to unlimited urban sprawl throughout the land to the south of Kenilworth.

Other

ID sylw: 93976

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Sue Scurrah

Broadly agree but would have to be really exceptional circumstances to justify losing green belt.

No

ID sylw: 94036

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr William Senior

We are in the midst of a global climate crisis. It is disgusting that South Warwickshire are considering any building at all on greenbelt which is home to millions of plants and trees which are scientifically proven to be critical to protecting the planet. There is also ample evidence that brownfield sites have not been properly explored or leveraged. It makes no logical sense to build on Greenbelt and it must be politically motivated.

No

ID sylw: 94047

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Stuart Mace

Land on the green belt should only be considered for development when all available land within the urban areas that it was designed to constrain has been developed. For instance, redundant office space, factories, shopping centres.

No

ID sylw: 94078

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Samantha Stafford Scott

I don’t believe green belt land should be up for consideration if there is any brownfield areas available for development. Specifically the Clopton quarter area of SG18 should be permanently protected from development so as to protect the Welcombe Hills and safeguard south Warwickshires beauty and “greenness”.

No

ID sylw: 94108

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr David Kelly

No, green belt should not be considered when brownfield land is available. Green belt should be safeguarded to restrict urban sprawl. New settlements are preferable to meet targets and quotas to prevent putting strain on existing infrastructure. The Clopton Quarter part of SG18 next to the Welcombe Hills should be permanently safeguarded against development to meet
South Warwickshire ‘overarching principles’ of “a beautiful South Warwickshire” & “a biodiverse and environmentally resilient South Warwickshire”

No

ID sylw: 94240

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Andrew Close

If you are following national policy, there is a question whether SWLP therefore requires a policy? Would it say anything more? A sequential approach, as proposed, doesn't really seem to be in the spirit of the permanence offered by Green Belt boundaries. Instead you could consider the importance of Green Belt when determining 'strategic sites' and allocating land to meet the government's housing targets to 2050; this includes new Grey Belt tests; and proposing the release of land for one or more New Towns/settlements. Green Belt should be an overlay within the Local Plan and SA analysis.

Other

ID sylw: 94276

Derbyniwyd: 18/02/2025

Ymatebydd: David M Walmsley

I want to reiterate my strong opposition to further development on greenbelt land, as there are sufficient alternative options already proposed. I am also concerned that the key figures in the consultation document do not reflect the HS2 route, which serves as a significant barrier and should define the northern boundary for development to avoid further erosion of the greenbelt. Additionally, I believe using the Climate Emergency as a justification for greenbelt development is misguided, as there are alternative ways to address this issue without harming the greenbelt.

No

ID sylw: 94282

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Stephanie Taylor

No, I do not believe that there has been enough consideration given the proportion of sites on the green belt, so does not appear as if wildlife etc has been taken into account. Whilst it is beneficial building near transport corridors, a lot of the roads within the vicinity are already stretched leading to greater fumes emitted by cars.

The green belts are important areas for wildlife, with many species relying on these. With the bee population in decline (which has the potential for serious long term impacts to food security) then the loss of these areas have significant impacts

Other

ID sylw: 94304

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms M Walker

Require granular detail of the Green Belt review before can support draft policy direction for Green Belt

No

ID sylw: 94308

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms M Walker

Require granular detail of the Green Belt review, before can support draft policy direction for Green Belt

No

ID sylw: 94365

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Elizabeth Bliss

Green Belt should be preserved to prevent urban sprawl and should not be considered when Brownfield sites are available.

No

ID sylw: 94367

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Alan Blandamer

It is important to preserve green belt as a way to restrict urban sprawl. Green belt should not be considered when brownfield land is available. The loss of green belt is irreversible. New settlements are preferable to prevent putting strain on existing infrastructure. The Clopton Quarter part of SG18 is next to the Welcome Hills and should be permanently safeguarded against development to meet South Warwickshire 'overarching principles' of "a beautiful South Warwickshire" and "a biodiverse and environmentally resilient South Warwickshire".

Yes

ID sylw: 94369

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: James Springate

Green belt areas should be vigorously defended from destruction.

Other

ID sylw: 94458

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Belinda Brown

After brownfield sites, non-green belt sites should be considered before green belt sites. There are sufficient sustainable non-green belt sites to meet the remaining housing need and no green belt land is therefore needed. In any green belt review, the quality of the green belt sites should be carefully considered for their role not only in preventing urban sprawl (e.g. Kenilworth and Coventry) but also extending Kenilworth indefinitely into the countryside and closing the gap between villages and/or Warwick (e.g. SG04) and the quality of green belt land in terms of openess, landscape character and biodiversity.

No

ID sylw: 94484

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Miss Isabel Collins

i do not believe green belt should be built on when brown belt is available. it should be safeguarded to protect urban sprawl.

No

ID sylw: 94511

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Carol Clark

The open character of Hockley Heath village adds to the openness of the Green Belt therefore SG24 should not be moved out of the Green Belt. Since 1999 there has been a group of volunteers who have added flowers to the village to encourage wildlife and enhance the open space country feel to the area.

Yes

ID sylw: 94570

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Stratford upon Avon Town Centre Strategic Partnership

But the planning authority must go with care in giving any green light to greenbelt development. The use of infill
sites in particular is sensitive particularly where they are environmentally significant as is not uncommon

No

ID sylw: 94674

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Miss Gala McBride

The Green Belt should be permanently protected for the sake of climate resilience and the ensuring of green spaces for humans' mental and physical wellbeing and pleasure as well as for the flora and fauna inhabiting green spaces. We need protection from toxic exhaust fumes and smell as individuals and as a small community here in Hatton village.