Yes

Representation ID: 87503

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: Michaelina Jakala

At this point I support the outline of the document.

Yes

Representation ID: 87677

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mr justin kerridge

broadly support

No

Representation ID: 87679

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Hannell

This consultation is too big in scope for most people to properly comprehend, or appreciate the amount change being proposed here.
Leamington, Warwick & Stratford are overpopulated areas already - the proposals here do nothing in real terms to improve the lives of those who have been living here for decades; rather it's another milestone in the detrimental change to the quality of life. And, we're the ones who are going to pay for it !

No

Representation ID: 87718

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Elspeth Bousfield

We absolutely DO NOT support the proposal. To summarise my concerns:
1. Temple Grafton and Arden Grafton are RURAL villages, not to be spoilt with new housing estates
2. Not having sufficient infrastructure eg. electricity, gas, water and no mains sewerage
3. Unsuitable roads and footpaths for increased traffic
4. Not enough capacity for schooling
5. Current land is farmed, increase in tarmacked areas, increase risk of flooding to current properties.

No

Representation ID: 87750

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Katy Oneill

I object to the housing proposal in Cubbington

No

Representation ID: 87765

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Sarah Castle

The proposed 1600 houses in Shipston is ludicrous, doesn't allow for flood resilience, extra demand on historic bridges, we are already owed infrastructure, as you have built and built with no upgrades to local amenities, sewage has already passed capacity and frequently leaking into residents gardens. Current schools and doctors couldn't cope.

No

Representation ID: 87787

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Fiona Henry

-

No

Representation ID: 87788

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Fiona Henry

It is possible to meet the housing needs without building on green belt land. Sufficient land exists at existing strategic growth locations outside of the green belt. Therefore the exceptional circumstances to build on green belt land have not been met.

No

Representation ID: 87793

Received: 11/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Allan Murdoch

I object to the selection of site X1 for the following reasons:
It will destroy valuable farmland.
The area is already designated a site of beauty and this would be destroyed.
More houses will cause further congestion in routes around and into Warwick and Leamington. These areas are so badly congested that simple journeys can take 5 times longer than they should.
The main Wellsbourne Barford road is already congested with furt her congestion if the Quarry is approved.
Endangered and protected species such as badgers and newts, owls and woodpeckers will be at risk.

No

Representation ID: 87844

Received: 11/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Graham Bamford

I have made comments specifically regarding New Settlement B1 - Hatton. My comments there are also relevant to other new settlements. South Warwickshire is systematically losing much of its greenbelt and farming land in the quest for more new houses, most of which are out of the price range of young people. There is little or no investment in suitable properties for retired people - apart from expensive apartments for leasing with high management fees. Get real Warwick District Council!

Yes

Representation ID: 88054

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Biddlecombe

No mention of fog surveys.

Yes

Representation ID: 88207

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ida Marjorie Brown

In general terms, for section 1.0 through to 1.11 i broadly support the process created as a sensible approach in what is a complex matter.

No

Representation ID: 88212

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Christine Woods

Having lived on Shrewley Common for 38years I am horrified at the thought of losing our green belt. Loss to wildlife will be catastrophic in particular Hedgehogs who I feed, roads cannot cope with traffic at peak times at the moment & more animals will die crossing them. I am worried about health care infrastructure in particular Warwick Hospital that is already struggling with the number of people attending. Once all these houses are built it will destroy life as we have known it & once gone can never be replaced

No

Representation ID: 88283

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Hancocks

I understand the need for a local plan but do not agree that we should be building in a green belt. It seems that the sites that have been brought forward are only included for consultation if land owners have put land forward - these places are not necessary the correct or best place for development. So I disagree with a call for sites, brown fields and empty houses need to be addressed first before the countryside is destroyed forever.

No

Representation ID: 88287

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Mr William Waterman

None

No

Representation ID: 88294

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Danielle Ingham

Site G1 should not even be considered! It absolutely ruins the local area of Northend! Not enough schooling space, not enough doctors surgeries, and no infrastructure to support this move! Save our countryside and farm land with no more cheap new build that do not consist with the local area. This would be detrimental to our quaint local area where crime rates are already increasing and the local police do nothing about it. We all insist that G1 does NOT go ahead. This would be detrimental to Northend and the surrounding area!!

No

Representation ID: 88331

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Fiona Spiers

The plan for 6800 homes in Bearly would damage biodiversity on Green belt land, flood our roads including Snitterfield with thousands more vehicles, swap our already over stretched infrastructure and public services, increase flooding problems and increase air and noise pollution. This in inappropriate expansion.

Yes

Representation ID: 88468

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sue Russell

I understand the need for sustainable housing and development but feel that it should be proportionate to the existing size of towns and villages in Warwickshire, so that it does not change the character of this historic, rural area.

No

Representation ID: 88487

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Hall

Extremely angry, furious, devastated with this proposal. Reasons:
1 Significant extra £ to buy to be in countryside, away from noise traffic /housing estates.
2 Rare birds cherished: regular wild: Dily: Pheasants nest at our garden: woodpeckers, kingfishers, quails, partridge, grouse and Goldfinch's nesting. Bats in roof.
3 Cherished Deer: Red deer, European Fallow Deer.
4 Roads dangerous/ congested. 5 minute drive = 25 minutes.
5 Parking unacceptable.
6 Public transport very poor
7 Hospitals/Doctor's. At breaking point. Mother spent 12 hours in A&E.
9 Schools classroom sizes bursting over quoter.
10 SOA double housing quoter for last few years.

No

Representation ID: 88522

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Alison Humphrey

Speaking just about the proposed plan for Shipston. We have already had multiple developments- one of which is still to be finished properly. Huge population boom with no infrastructure or public services. Surely it would be better to finish one before starting another, and provide services that people can use.

No

Representation ID: 88571

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Mary & Eddie Kuczynski

I cannot believe how any logical thinking group would build On Greenbelt areas!

No

Representation ID: 88572

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Pat Smith

N/A

No

Representation ID: 88580

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Robert Ian O’Malley

Shipston-on-Stour has already seen excessive development without essential infrastructure improvements. Public services have declined, with the loss of our police station, fire station downgrade, and reduced hospital beds. Roads are congested, public transport is inadequate, and flood risks are increasing, with 42% of the Fell Mill site in flood zones 3 and 2. Employment opportunities are shrinking, forcing more people to commute. This development will only worsen these issues. Before any further expansion, Shipston must receive significant infrastructure upgrades. I strongly urge the planning committee to reject this proposal in the interest of the town’s sustainability and residents.

Yes

Representation ID: 88675

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Crispin Passmore

When balancing the various factors such as needs for housing, employment, green space, the climate/environment, please take the route that is most likely to deliver economic growth, economic growth per head, affordable housing and local employment opportunities over the green belt and other environmental issues. The only way the UK can afford to fund the urgent climate action needed, protect the environment and local green belt is through economic growth. That needs to be prioritised in a way that it has not been for the last 15 years.

No

Representation ID: 88863

Received: 18/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ida Marjorie Brown

The whole approach for such a developed plan is wrong for UK wide. Many Policy and Directive Headers are the same for other county's. The country should collectively have one format, same topics and guidelines, developed county by county and then ratified as a UK wide plan so to avoid disparate solutions and inconsistency. Local designated areas for development and settlements will be achieved locally but the remaining policies should be consistent across the country. Very badly organised by UK Government. We need to avoid a mish mash and be connected for once with one vision.

Other

Representation ID: 88954

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Wendy Bannerman

Why is the Rights of Way Improvement Plan for Warwickshire not included in the list of Technical documents? The RoWIP should influence the LTP and infrastructure planning.

Yes

Representation ID: 88979

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

We are being forced to take a lot of growth by the Government. It is essential that this is accommodated as sensitively as possible

No

Representation ID: 89370

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Maureen Pittaway

I do not support the proposals

Yes

Representation ID: 89387

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Amanda Knight

The information above is detailed and expansive. We broadly support the information contained therein.

Other

Representation ID: 89488

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sidney Syson

This introduction is too long. If the consultation were to be split into 3, each part could then have a short to the point introduction which people are more likely to read. The 3 suggested parts are potential growth areas, potential new settlements and draft policies.