Yes

Representation ID: 85941

Received: 10/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sidney Syson

Yes it looks comprehensive.

Yes

Representation ID: 86040

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Sandy McCaskie

N/A

No

Representation ID: 86181

Received: 14/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Freeman

I am totally against you bulding on designated green belt. That land will be lost foreever !

No

Representation ID: 86182

Received: 14/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Graham Bamford

The SWLP goes directly against the principle of preserving the greenbelt as mentioned in your introduction.
It provides for urban sprawl on an a significantly ugly scale and is not welcomed by those living in these rural areas.
It represents literally a blot on the landscape and is designed to spoil a way of life enjoyed not just by local residents but visitors wanting to enjoy the peace and beauty that the countryside provides.
This is a democratic society and I trust the views of local communities affected by these horrific plans will be considered.

No

Representation ID: 86188

Received: 14/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sandra Williams

The main aim should be to protect the greenbelt and redevelop existing brownfield sites.

No

Representation ID: 86208

Received: 15/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Adrian Hopkinson

The South Warwickshire economy is heavily dependant on the motor car and its production. New residents in this area will also want motor cars. The infrastructure is already inadequate for the existing number of cars. Therefore expansion on the lines intended under the plan is not sustainable. It is also obvious that the CO2 generated by new housing will not be easily dispersed as the countryside shrinks. Also the residents of South Warwickshire do not want any further expansion.

No

Representation ID: 86213

Received: 15/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Elliot

Our villages are being destroyed with no thought to the infrastructure- no schools no doctors to support this. Already flooding due to building on flood plains. There are enormous amount of houses left to go derelict and businesses which could be utilised to provide more housing but instead we are destroying the beautiful green countryside and building wherever. This is so wrong this gov should not be doing this, we cannot keep taking all these people into our country and then building more and more to house them. I totally disagree with Labours policy of build build build!!

Yes

Representation ID: 86254

Received: 17/01/2025

Respondent: Cllr Andrew Day

No comments

Yes

Representation ID: 86283

Received: 19/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Checkley

Fine

Other

Representation ID: 86372

Received: 22/01/2025

Respondent: Ms May Lau

I would like to comment on those that are more relevant to me. I would also like to bring attention to new technology that may help deal with waste-generated energy at home - HERU machine using pyrolysis to turn waste into clean energy on farms, big mansions, Government buildings, etc.

No

Representation ID: 86392

Received: 23/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Chris McCarthy

HS2 still under construction locally, with such a huge impact on the environment, massive investment, disruption that had not been planned for. Now combined with the potential that it will be cancelled, Leamington needs a rest, time to establish the town priorities and build from the centre out.
As we know since new housing was agreed in Warwick Gates and South Leamington, the impact on the local environment has been calamitous, local travel, the lack of schools and the absence of a local ecosystem of new healthcare provision, open spaces has had a significant impact on our quality of life.

Yes

Representation ID: 86394

Received: 23/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sheila Chennells

No there will be too many houses built in the area and the roads will not be able to sustain the high demand of traffic. We are already having issues with traffic around the area already. Access Road in and out on Rounds Hill and John o’gaunt is narrow and the roads will not be able to to accommodate the additional traffic.

No

Representation ID: 86396

Received: 23/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sheila Chennells

As I mentioned previously I do not feel that we can accommodate this number of houses in our local area. We have neither the infrastructure or the road ways to accommodate and support your proposals. The extension to castle farm is already having an impact on the area as the roads are narrow and cannot accommodate the additional traffic and parking.

Other

Representation ID: 86437

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Norman

The Term 'Sustainable Development' is used quite often which means different things to different people. As it is an important driver for the proposals/options, it should be clearly defined upfront/

Other

Representation ID: 86544

Received: 28/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Bridgewater

Broadly supportive, but the local promotion of this Local Plan consultation has been poor. It's been all but invisible in the parish.
Given we have a Climate Crisis, the greatest threat to our way of life for many centuries, I do not see a huge sense of urgency in this matter.
There could be a section on promoting local democracy.

No

Representation ID: 86625

Received: 28/01/2025

Respondent: Ms Louise Chivers

Flooding already
Aesthetic will be ruined.
Infrastructure inadequate.

No

Representation ID: 86985

Received: 02/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Katie Reay mutchell

The impact on the wildlife and environment is of great importance to us as a family! I am sick of green belt land being used for development it’s ridiculous!
The roads also can’t take more traffic near us!
To sum up this is an awful idea to put houses on the green belt!!

Other

Representation ID: 87157

Received: 05/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Durk

Provision must/be made to/build affordable housing, mixtures of/apartments, terraces, semidetached, detached.
Housing must be of/mixed type so people of/different types/wealth are not isolated from each other. Ideally new housing should encompass this idea by being built closer to/existing isolated large houses(in/particular) where land has already been considered for redevelopment.
Green belt needs to/be preserved. Brown sites need to/be sought and not left idle for/years. Empty high/street premises should be converted to housing/flats/apartments. We are never going to revert to high/streets of old.
Every new/build should/have flowering/shrub planted by builder. 100% Paved/drives or gardens should/be forbidden to allow for drainage.

No

Representation ID: 87158

Received: 05/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorna O'Connell

The social infrastructure (schools, GP etc) within the Shipston on Stour area does not suit any more development. Plus there are many flood areas and it would also be very detrimental to surrounding wildlife.

Yes

Representation ID: 87189

Received: 06/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Christopher Howarth

All the policies are in line with what one would expect in a consultation and going forward on such a task as this with appropriate supporting data and detail

No

Representation ID: 87200

Received: 06/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Folkes

I do not agree with the Kinwarton field site proposal for housing. This is a natural area for birds, deers, hedgehogs and rabbits. This is a popular dog walking site and does not need to be developed on.

Other

Representation ID: 87225

Received: 06/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Christine Oakes

Get transport sorted before you think about building any more housing!

No

Representation ID: 87226

Received: 06/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Christine Oakes

Get transport sorted before you think about building any more housing!

No

Representation ID: 87292

Received: 08/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Daisy Langford

I object to the 1600 houses being built near Shipston on stour. It’s ridiculous and would make the town less appealing and harder for everyone living here to get a good easy education and access to good healthcare and be able to get food at prices they can afford. No body I know thinks it’s a good idea and I strongly object.

Other

Representation ID: 87299

Received: 08/02/2025

Respondent: Philip Sykes

YES. Support the proposals in the Introduction .However, locations detailed in Fig 6 & table 5 appear to be driven by Call for Sites data rather than by determining where growth is desirable and then researching land availability. For example growth is not desirable in SG17 as it does not fit any of the desirable attributes of a 'growth corridor'. The infrastructure is not capable of supporting the last ten years growth let alone future growth. Yet as a large area of green field land has been offered for sites is seems as though this has driven its SG designation.

No

Representation ID: 87445

Received: 08/02/2025

Respondent: Mr EDWARD MAY

Proposals for development Dale House Lane and SGO2 totally inappropriate. This is an environmentally sensitve area and a vital green space between kenilworth and a46. Growth in this part of Kenilworth has already been too high

SGO1 at Gibber hill is out of all proportion and is far far too large. It is vital the distinction between the large city of Coventry and small town of Kenilworth is maintained by its existing green belt.

Other

Representation ID: 87468

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Barrie Hayles

The requirement to protect the important historic character and charm of Warwick, Leamington, Whitnash and surrounding villages needs more emphasis in all planning.

No

Representation ID: 87470

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: Mr David Law

As a resident of one of the affected areas it will completely change life here for the worse. We moved here for a reason, because it was a quiet village which worked, with green space around it. This will put major works at the end of our garden for years to come, and change the feel of a quiet, friendly, green village forever. Please don’t do it.

No

Representation ID: 87472

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Barrie Hayles

South Warwickshire is suffering badly from over-development with existing roads, water and sewage services as here in Bishop's Tachbrook being seriously affected. Access to Warwick hospital for many has been made extremely difficult with inadequate parking, and no viable village bus service for those who are ill or infirm. Further large scale developments with no infrastructure improvements badly impact the quality of life for all residents. The indicated housing development for Bishop's Tachbrook contradicts the carefully considered Parish Council Plan, thereby discounting all the work of the community in preparing it.

No

Representation ID: 87486

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Linda Haynes

N/a