Yes

ID sylw: 96054

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Andrew Marshall

I support the maintenance of the Green Belt policy .

No

ID sylw: 96056

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Lorraine Mathers

Green Belt should be preserved and protected at all costs. Once it has been destroyed it is irreplaceable and it is lost forever. If Green Belt is used for development it will encourage urban sprawl and coalescence of villages, and in itself will lead to further development and infill.

It is essential that green space is respected as it provides important health benefits, leisure and recreational opportunities, and also a wildlife habitat.

Other

ID sylw: 96109

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Judith Palmer

C1 - Kingswood The entire development is located on Green Belt land, which is protected by longstanding planning policy designed to prevent urban sprawl and retain the openness of the countryside.
Within the settlement area there is also a large section around the canals designated as a conservation area, an area of ancient woodland and several local wildlife sites.
This would be inappropriate development of the Green Belt.

No

ID sylw: 96142

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Janine Lee

See my submission statement.

No

ID sylw: 96216

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Trevor Handcock

Green belt land should only be developed when all other possibilities have been looked at. There are many brown field sites in and around the area which have too be utilised first. These would already have a degree of access roads in place and utility supplies.

No

ID sylw: 96233

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Jonathan Stafford-scott

Green belt should not be considered when brownfield land is available and when 70% of land in the UK is used for animal agriculture when meat and dairy only provide 18% of our calories.
Green belt should be protected to restrict urban sprawl.
New settlements are better to meet housing 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”

Other

ID sylw: 96297

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Southam Town Council

Southam’s Town, District and County representatives note the review of Green Belt contained within the South Warwickshire local plan. However, we would like to have seen a more extensive review of the Green Belt to allow greater levels of development near major population centres. For example, following the development of HS2, Southam’s Town, District and County representatives believe that the area directly south of Coventry would provide greater opportunities for sustainable development than new stand-alone settlements in the south of the county where there is less of the relevant infrastructure.

Other

ID sylw: 96396

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Elias Topping

The draft policy needs to be updated to ensure compliance with the new Planning Policy Guidance in respect of Grey Belt land issued on 27 February 2025; reference should be made to the release of potential Grey Belt sites in the sequential approach listed in the draft policy. In particular it should be noted that the guidance in respect of the Green Belt preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another relates specifically to towns, not villages or other small settlements.

Yes

ID sylw: 96420

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: John Dinnie

I am in agreement with the broad approach to the Green Belt. It is worth considering how other policies like those towards Landscape could be used instead of the blanket green belt approach.

Yes

ID sylw: 96444

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Julie Springate

Green belt areas should be vigorously defended from destruction.

No

ID sylw: 96459

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Dave Abbey

All Green Belt land should be protected, it is the lungs that make Warwickshire such a lovely county to visit / walk in. Building on Farm Land that is Green Belt is madness, we need the food, we are in danger of just creating urban sprawl.

No

ID sylw: 96473

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Peter Robbins

It is unclear to me what this policy means. It should be explicit that greenbelt will be protected when there are sufficient other sites available.

Other

ID sylw: 96480

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Hatton Parish Council

The formulaic approach of the Arup Green Belt Review Stage 1 does not properly identify the particular value of the rural area west of Warwick in relation to the amenity it provides for the residents of Warwick/Leamington.

Given the proportion of green belt land across the combined districts, there can be no question of the 'Special Circumstances' required for land to be removed from it for large scale development being fulfilled.

Small scale development to support and expand existing communities may well be justified in some circumstances.

No

ID sylw: 96492

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Eileen Robbins

It is unclear to me what this policy means. It should be explicit that greenbelt will be protected when there are sufficient other sites available.

Yes

ID sylw: 96496

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Shipston Town Council

If some Green Belt is used for development is it possible to have a policy that seeks to replace the area taken elsewhere in South Warwickshire, for example extending non affected Green Belt, creating new Green Belt or extending the Cotswold National Landscape?
Green belt land is an asset that should be protected and there are numerous empty/derelict properties and areas of land that should be used before tampering with the green belt.

No

ID sylw: 96581

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Julian Burnell

Erosion of Green Belt is an excuse for developers to build the wrong kind of buildings. Detatched residences with individual gardens are unsustainable. As a former resident of a medium-density development (William Tarver Close in Warwick) I have seen what developments of that kind can offer to neighbourhoods, whilst minimising land take and offering lower-cost homes.

Other

ID sylw: 96688

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Janet Gee

There is a risk that Burton Green will be absorbed into Coventry and Hatton into Warwick unless the protection of the greenbelt is prioritised and robustly applied.

Other

ID sylw: 96770

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs R Douce

The emphasis should be on maintaining green belt to prevent urban sprawl and allow existing areas to maintain their special character and settings. Green belt is a precious commodity required for agriculture, biodiversity, and physical/mental wellbeing. The regeneration of brownfield sites should take absolute priority with the potential to provide high quality and affordable dwellings in mixed use areas. The declining requirement for retail space provides an opportunity to refurbish existing buildings within an existing infrastructure. The mix of dwellings needed within the community should take precedence over developers who benefit from delivering high value homes on green belt land.

Yes

ID sylw: 96829

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Alcester Town Council

Alcester Town Council, Arrow with Weethley Parish Council, Kinwarton Parish Council, Wixford Parish Council and Great Alne Parish Council acknowledge that the SWLP must follow national planning policy in respect of the Green Belt. The Green Belt is however a considerable and valuable asset of the Plan area, and as such deserves continued protection from development in almost all cases. We note that the NPPF continues to place great importance on Green Belt. We would like to have clarification of any criteria to be used in deciding what constitutes ‘exceptional circumstances’ in consideration of developments in Green Belt locations.

Other

ID sylw: 96918

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Trevor Dutton

The protection of the current (remaining) Green Belt should be more strongly enforced. The unique characteristics of this region of South Warwickshire depends upon enforcing no further encroachment of historical towns and villages and the loss of green corridors. These features are an essential part of what makes the area attractive to residents. Loss of Green Belt is likely to cause negative growth in the region.

Other

ID sylw: 96935

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Margaret Jeffery

Other sites eg B1, E1 and X2 would be more suitable and would not impact Green Belt land as the BW proposal would

No

ID sylw: 97029

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Emily Morris

Greenbelt land should be protected. The area proposed in SG18 is next to the Welcombe hills and should be Safeguarded against any development.

No

ID sylw: 97114

Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Tysoe Parish Council

If more sensible housing requirement assumptions were used Green Belt land would not be required to be considered.

Other

ID sylw: 97157

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Sir Thomas White’s Charity and The King Henry VIII Endowed Trust, Warwick

Asiant : Stansgate Planning

The Policy Direction indicates that the SWLP will take a sequential approach to allocating strategic areas of growth and new settlements, with the release of land from within the Green Belt where there is sufficient justification on the grounds of sustainability to meet the Framework test of
‘exceptional circumstances’. The Direction indicates that further work on this is ongoing.
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.
It is clear from the wording of the current Framework that the Government recognises there will now be occasions when land within the Green Belt should be released for development. New paragraph 146 makes this particularly clear, stating that ‘exceptional circumstances’ for altering Green Belt boundaries will include, but are not limited to, instances where an authority cannot meet its identified
need for homes, commercial or other development through other means. Paragraph 147 outlines further instances when land might be released. In respect of Stratford and Warwick Districts, there is insufficient previously developed and underutilised land, and opportunities to increase density on existing sites, to meet the identified housing needs. It is not reasonable for land to be allocated in neighbouring local authority areas (indeed Stratford and Warwick will be required to assist their own neighbours). Greenfield land will be required instead.
The thrust of national planning guidance is that land to be allocated must be sustainably located. Given historic development patterns, many of the most sustainable locations are now within the Green Belt and this should be acknowledged by removing land from the Green Belt to meet future housing needs. The Part 2 Green Belt assessment will confirm this.
To consider this further, the current Local Plans focused development on areas outside of Green Belt and have used many of the available opportunities for allocations in such locations. For example, in Warwick District, substantial allocations were directed to the areas south of Warwick and Leamington, providing housing close to existing employment areas. Further development in
the same location will extend the settlements away from their core centres leading to an imbalance of growth and extending travel distances back to the centre. Development on other edges of the settlements would be closer to local service and facilities, shops, schools, employment and have a greater range of sustainable transport opportunities and must be fully explored, particularly where development will have limited impact on the Green Belt across the area of the plan (as required by Framework paragraph 146)

Other

ID sylw: 97251

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Peter Lewin

Green belt is vital to maintaining the health of residents. Therefore, it should be retained to ensure that wildlife can flourish and give people the opportunity to benefit from walking and enjoying that wildlife.

No

ID sylw: 97290

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Bernard Davis

Of 24 Spatial Growth areas in the plan. 12 are on non-green belt land, 2 area mixed designation, and 10 SG are purely green belt. The volume of land required to meet South Warwickshire’s housing needs can be fulfilled without using any green belt land.

No

ID sylw: 97291

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Carol Longford

Policy directed to New Settlements, should protect
existing green belt on established settlements
unless there is substantial increase in the development area.

No

ID sylw: 97326

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Lucy White

I believe keeping green belt and green field sites are essential part of planning

No

ID sylw: 97343

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Guy Morris

Greenbelt land should be protected. Especially when brownfield land is available. New settlements put less pressure on existing infrastructure and any greenbelt land around the Welcombe Hills should be permanently preserved. South Warwickshire council claims to have a principle of "biodiverse and environmentally resilient South Warwickshire." Building on the greenbelt by the Welcombe Hills is extremely hypocritical.

Other

ID sylw: 97372

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Godwin Developments

Godwin Development acknowledge the approach taken in Draft Policy Direction 7 regarding Green Belt. It is important that sites considered to be ‘Grey Belt’ should be reflected within the context of this emerging policy.

As acknowledged previously, Godwin Developments land interest in Hockley Heath has previously been allocated for development in the Warwick Local Plan whilst being washed over Green Belt. Furthermore, to help support the site going forward a Grey Belt Assessment has been prepared and submitted with these representations. This report concludes that the site is considered to qualify as a ‘Grey Belt’ site.