Yes

Representation ID: 89503

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Hince

No additional comments

Yes

Representation ID: 89703

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Janet Taylor

I agree with the overall aims of the plan

Yes

Representation ID: 89719

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Compton Verney

N/A

No

Representation ID: 89792

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Evans

These proposals would have a catastrophic impact on a village the size of Hockley Heath.
We are a small community with homes currently numbering approximately 800.
If only 15% of the proposed sites are developed, this would still double the size.
Solihull MBC have already determined that only small scale developments would be appropriate for Hockley Heath and, overriding this decision undermines local planning authority evidence.
Surely the issues that inevitably arise from large scale developments deem the proposals as completely inappropriate for Hockley Heath.

No

Representation ID: 90035

Received: 22/02/2025

Respondent: Mr David Wilson

I do not believe Lapworth should be considered for development. Protect the villages at all costs

No

Representation ID: 90038

Received: 22/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Meera Bushell

Insufficient infrastructure to sustain plans

Other

Representation ID: 90045

Received: 22/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Dan Fell

Change SG07 to residential primarily and I would approve that site as someone who lives within 250m of it.

B1 is not suitable without enormous investment in wider infrastructure. Secondary, multiple primary schools, new road installations, extension to the platforms at Hatton park and national rail timetable changes. Multi storey car park at Hatton park and many other inevitable projects which would come from 8,000 houses.

Other

Representation ID: 90047

Received: 22/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Katie Walker

Although we understand the need to increase housing stock and infrastructure, the scale of the proposed development is alarming and we believe it will fundamentally change the area and destroy huge areas of green belt land.

No

Representation ID: 90061

Received: 22/02/2025

Respondent: Philippa Templeton

Stratford upon Avon/ Wootten Wawen are not the right sites for such large scale developments, we don’t have the infrastructure - traffic is a nightmare, commuting is awful, schools full (SOA High School had the highest enrolment of 350 in a year across the whole of Warwickshire), river polluted, not enough police, dentists, A&E overrun

We don’t have the large businesses to support a workforce, they will need to commute to work elsewhere = traffic.

The government should NOT be building on greenfield sites, it’s a disgrace, all building that has been done is cheap and not environmentally focussed

No

Representation ID: 90101

Received: 22/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Adrian Hopkinson

The place for new housing is in the Cities, not in the rural counties. The latter are not good Enterprise hubs.

Yes

Representation ID: 90570

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Warwick Town Council

N/a

No

Representation ID: 90573

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Aurelie Potter

The houses built are soul-less and only serve to enrich developers without truly supporting the community.
The road network is saturated from all the houses built in the last decade without genuine road improvement.
The countryside is disappearing with bridal path overused from so many people and turning into mud pits. Council does absolutely nothing to remedy

Other

Representation ID: 90698

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Dr Penny Gray

We are in a climate emergency. This should be acknowledged in the first paragraph of the Introduction 1.1. - replace 'climate change' with 'the climate emergency'. Likewise, 1.6. paragraph 2, add after 'the SWLP must contribute to the achievement of sustainable development'', 'address the climate emergency,'
Stakeholder engagement 1.7.4. does not mention processes or aims. The current structures and processes do not reflect the diversity of the local population - this should be included as an aim here.

Yes

Representation ID: 90719

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Maxine Mayer

I am concerned that the sustainability assessments have been poorly/not undertaken. The risk assessment for the preferred settlements particularly for flood risk, air quality and minerals assessment are wrong and not supported by published technical evidence.

No

Representation ID: 90817

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Tamsyn Pickford

I grew up in Wilmcote and have been shocked by these plans. The village and its essence will be evaporated by such a unfathomably large housing development. The villages involved will be transformed by such a high level of high density housing & without any of the attendant infrastructure that will be necessary for such a large number of homes. (Infrastructure that would have developed organically if the local villages had expanded at a natural pace.)
The local infrastructure is already at creaking point - especially vis-á-vis the traffic which is already very heavy on the A34 and A46.

Other

Representation ID: 90829

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Gavin stewart

As we have over provided housing in the area we should be counting those houses already in planning towards targets.

No

Representation ID: 90877

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Elizabeth Edwards

Poor infrastructure unable to cope with 10000 addition families.

Yes

Representation ID: 90975

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Timothy crook

N/a

Other

Representation ID: 90994

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Julian Brown

I broadly support the proposals.

However, do not understand why Central Government did carry out this work county by county using a proforma the same for each county and thus save taxpayer money. A lot of what is proposed in this document is "standard" by definition and application to be used for each county. The real criteria difference being designated sites for Strategic Growth or New Housing Needs identification. the remaining elements of the proposal must be consistent throughout the country due to its relevance. It keeps the focus consistent, save taxpayer money must be applied consistently across the country.

Yes

Representation ID: 91030

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Rodney Hicken

Yes

No

Representation ID: 91038

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Harridine

The basic principle of the plan are incorrect for the following reasons
1. House prices will continue to rise as ‘working from home’ is creating excess demand in the area
2. The lowest price houses on all of the new developments in the area are well out of reach of low income workers
3. The road infrastructure is incapable of coping.
4. There is no scope to expand use of Hatton station as it’s locked in by existing housing and tiny lanes
5. Massive loss of agricultural land and green belt cannot be justified
6. Job creation wildly optimistic

No

Representation ID: 91134

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Janet Johnson

Apart from the fact it’s way too confusing I don’t agree with basing a plan that takes as it’s starting point which land owners are prepared to sell.
Once you use that as your starting point you lose all integrity in terms of an holistic approach to a viable plan for the future.
This piecemeal approach is deeply flawed.

No

Representation ID: 91252

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Eli Leyton

Prefer the Leamington site as closer to MWay, has plenty of amenities and infrastructure in place.
Would lose dairy farm at Hatton
Poor parking. Railway Station inadequate as are the road bridges.
Wedgnock farm. Unable to sell house already built near by. Roads would become too busy

Yes

Representation ID: 91254

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Joanne Randall

no comment

Other

Representation ID: 91407

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mr David Compton

Protection of natural and agricultural areas must be preserved. Continued encroachment into green field areas might solve a short term problem but create more problems in the longer term. With an ever unstable world, we must be more sustainable in food production and self sufficiency. Even if we say that we are over-producing now, this may not be true in the future and once taken out of production, it may never be possible to replace it.

No

Representation ID: 91455

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jan Jennings

I OBJECT to the destruction of the environment, villages and urbanisation when brown belt and empty office buildings, shops etc could be converted, together with empty houses in towns being restored alongside an infrastructure that cannot cope. Enough is enough

No

Representation ID: 91647

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Ganderton

Studley cannot support the amount of homes that are planned to be built. Doctors, schools and the road system will not be able to cope with the increased population. Also The Slough, Node Hill and Bromsgrove Road are already far to busy without the increased amount of cars that will be using them, accidents already happen far too often. Astwood Bank would also be affected with the increased volume of traffic. We do not need a new housing estate on the scale that is being proposed. We have lovely countryside so lets keep it. I strongly object to the proposal.

Other

Representation ID: 91659

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Tim Wright

There is far to much information & there should be a simple summary for local people.
This is burying locals in too much information.

No

Representation ID: 91838

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Mason

There is now a trend towards more days or full time in the office now rather than home working. Therefore more rather than fewer journeys are expected. The A46 cannot handle any more and the additional cars that would be involved for the B1 and SG07 location developments.

No

Representation ID: 91982

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mr John L Thomas

Hockley HEATH SG24-I am against the SWLP proposals, the plan does not support the infrastructure of the village.
A housing only proposal, is not sustainable and would lead to greater traffic congestion.
Hockley Heath is already prone to floods with A3400 , SPring lane and SCHool road regularly being flooded. SG24 proposals are all on green belt, loss of this land would harm wildlife and impact biodiversity.
Transport links are currently poor and no easy access to rail services.
Where will new residents readily find employment?
No doctor surgery or pharmacy in Hockley Heath.