Q-H4-1: Do you agree with the approach of contributing to meeting the Birmingham and Black Country HMA shortfall to 2031 on the identified sites in Stratford-on-Avon District?
There is no shortfall of housing; there is plenty of housing in Birmingham, in fact it is covered in housing. Instead, there is an excess of children and migration. With a finite land supply, any new houses built in South Warwickshire is unsustainable, therefore should not be built. The policy should be to discourage people in Birmingham from having children. Moreover, the map clearly shows that the HMA is a very odd shape; why is South Warwickshire taking Birmingham's shortfall, what about other counties surrounding the West Midlands?
We should buy land in Birmingham and build tower blocks on it to accommodate the short fall. That will mean the individuals are closer to the jobs and families, have easier access to public transportation, and it will be cheaper than building housing.
Overspill from Birmingham should be at least partially accommodated in existing Green Belt settlements as part of a larger GB Review -especially those on, or close to, road and rail routes.
via dispersal across the district
An attempt should be made to take responsibility for the shortfall of neighbouring authorities. Not only will this house building help local affordability but it can have positive economic impacts. Furthermore neighbouring authorities shortfall will directly hurt local house prices as it is very easy for people to commute and compete for houses in Warwickshire which doesn’t help affordability.
South Warwickshire should build as many homes as it can. The area is predominately rural and could easily accommodate new houses on a disperse density across the area. This would support rural areas that have been starved of development and opportunity, providing housing for locals improving affordability. Spread development across the predominately rural area. This would allow for many settlements of all sizes to incrementally absorb such development without harming the feel of the area and would provide a welcome boost to the area. With all the subsequent housing and economic benefits that this would provide compared to a few huge developments which would have a significant impact, including placing strain on local service and infrastructure as well as having larger issues with pollution and poorer air quality. Development should be dispersed in order to better meet the desire for 20 minute neighbourhoods within a rural area.
No answer given
Infrastructure needs to be put in place to accommodate greater commuting flows from the districts back into Birmingham. Particularly looking at rail capacity to ensure that stations are designed to cope with the numbers of commuters and they are attractive enough to prevent everyone instead getting in their cars.
Birmingham and the adjacent local authorities need to address their shortfall by a more vigourous use of regeneration on its brownfield sites of which Birmingham has a large supply.
Adjacent to the rail corridors without segmenting the Green Belt to preserve the necessary wildlife access corridors through the Green Belt.
No answer given
Create new settlements that do not destroy existing settlements, villages or towns.
There appears to be a generally held assumption that people who would otherwise live in one area would willingly move to another.
Design and construct settlements with integrated infrastructure. Avoid disseminating existing small communities.
The scale of the shortfall is speculative at this point in time.
Use brown field sites. All councils have lists of brown field sites. Supermarkets for example have land banks which are held for investment purposes. Local Councils should be able to buy brown field sites which are being held just for speculation and future profits before precious green belt land is considered. Self and custom built houses should be encouraged
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
There is massive development across the SWLP area without taking on additional requirements.
Reconfigure town centres into housing. Brownfield sites come next and Greenfield should be the last option
No answer given
At the closest and most appropriate location to Birmingham.
No answer given
No answer given
Tough. I feel we are struggling to meet our own housing needs without being swallowed up into a massive conurbation.
How should I know? We already seem to be sacrificing our environment and green belt to our housing needs. Why should we lose more??
Birmingham and the backcountry have plenty of brown land and green areas they could develop themselves
Between the m40 and Warwick parkway to allow for good connection transportation to Birmingham for work
there are hundreds of potential brownfield sites all over the Birmingham area which can be redeveloped for housing meeting the needs of the Birmingham area.
We should not meet any shortfall from other locations
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
The settlements should be as close to Brimingham and the Black Country as possible.
SOUTH WARWICKSHIRE SHOULD MAKE AN ADEQUATE CONTRIBUTION TO THE BIRMINGHAM AND BLACK COUNTRY SHORTFALL OF SAY 5,000 HOMES
ADJACENT WATWICKSHIRE TOWN SITES AND IN PARTICULAR REVIEW GREEN BELT AND BROWNFIELD SITES
Greater pressure should be placed on the Birmingham and Black Country Authorities to utilise brownfield site within their own boundaries thereby reducing the need for South Warwickshire to accommodate the shortfall of dwellings which can be provided
Greater consideration should be given to infill and edge of Green Belt locations
No answer given
Disused brownfield sites. New settlements would be better option to ensure necessary infrastructure is included, to prevent increasing pressure on existing infrastructure, for example access to primary healthcare, schools.
No answer given
If needed, in areas that are already have / are planning to have the appropriate infrastructure to support such developments. Do not build in Green Belt, but perhaps consider Brown Lands.
There is a focus on meeting displaced housing needs from Birmingham and the Black Country. However, there is no indication that South Warwickshire itself could displace any housing need in other areas. This seems inequitable.
We must protect the Greenbelt, which was set up to stop urban sprawl.
Absolutely not. Must be very strongly resisted.
We shouldn’t. The situation must not be allowed any consideration. This threatens the green belts, agricultural land, open space, and other vital aspects that towns outside cities provide. Consideration at central government level for a new town type of development, with a full set of supporting infrastructure may be the best way, not for local authorities to decide on.
Need to meet local needs first. Alcester has no similarity with these large urban areas.
New settlements. Definitately no reduction of the present green belt.
No answer given
we should definitely NOT be developing in the Green Belt for all the reasons I have already given in this consultation document. We should not be sacrificing our valuable Green Belt land that keeps our communities so well defined, in order to accommodate non-local people.
No answer given
In close proximity to the the area with a shortfall.