No

Representation ID: 92037

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Christopher Marlow

We only heard about the proposals a few weeks ago and object . It will ruin the existing environment - the nearby villages and towns will not be able to cope - the existing infrastructure will have to replaced.

No

Representation ID: 92044

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Prof Emma Mason

The plans are bad for wellbeing, emotional and physical health of those who live here (including potential new communities), no infrastructure to support, no respect for environment, nature, and lives of those who live here.

Yes

Representation ID: 92094

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs cynthia bettany

policy 5; infrastructure: I hope this will include the provision of further schools, surgeries,public transport,retail outlets improvement of roads, rather than expecting current providers to absorb the increase of developments, both of strategic growth areas and new settlements

Yes

Representation ID: 92113

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Vincent

Very thorough logical approach to developing the overall strategic plan

No

Representation ID: 92260

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Philip Dickinson

Stop building on fields, creating 'new settlements' that are reliant on car transport.....and start creating new housing by re-developing existing sites within existing towns. Convert unused retail or office spaces to create new residential properties to bring life into towns. It may only be 5 properties here, 10 there (vs the 100's) in one go....but they all add up

No

Representation ID: 92269

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Kevin Middleton

Na

Yes

Representation ID: 92490

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Vanessa Lowe

No further comments

Other

Representation ID: 92574

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Julian Brown

I broadly support the proposals but question why Central Government didn't use a uniform proforma for the plan so that each county could utilise to save taxpayer money. Most of the proposals are standard and should be applied consistently nationwide, except for designated sites for Strategic Growth or New Housing Needs that have to be determined locally at County level rather than district.

No

Representation ID: 92628

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Treacy Johnson

Transport links terrible insufficient public transport.
Oversubscribed primary school.
No secondary school.
No leisure centre.
No swimming facilities important for people who live by a river.
Dying high street.
More cars on the road or isolation for those who don’t drive.

No

Representation ID: 92762

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Caroline Leighfield

Bidford does not have the infrastructure to support new housing. Alcester and Studley are smaller but have a bigger infrastructure and schools to support

No

Representation ID: 92792

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lynn Worton

The entire development is within Green Belt = loss of our beautiful countryside, wildlife habitat & also creates urban sprawl merging Bearley & Wilmcote into Stratford, therefore undermining our village community
SDC have already identified Wilmcote as high risk for flooding so major building will simply increase flood damage, pressure on drainage & sewage systems & incur higher insurance costs.
Increased traffic volume overwhelming for A3400 which couldn't be sufficiently upgraded due to bottlenecks at Wootton & Henley. The A46 would also need major upgrading, both incurring huge costs.
Local employment minimal = majority of residents commuting = environmentally unsustainable.

No

Representation ID: 92851

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Worton

There is so much wrong with this ill thought out proposal.
Green belt, meant to stop ribbon development.
Conservation area, there to protect flora and fauna.
Prime farmland.
Susceptible to flooding and more importantly flood run off.
The road system will not cope even with major alterations due to pinch points.
Another poorly connected, car dependent dormitory settlement which equals pollution.
Massive infrastructure issues, schools, medical, drainage, sewage, shops, bus service, trains.
It will swallow Wilmcote, Pathlow, Bearley and become part of Stratford. Destroying our beautiful countryside and wildlife.
New businesses won't come as poor connections so no employment prospects.

No

Representation ID: 93102

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Ben Hunter

Totally against any building on Green belt as this will cause habitat loss to many species including barn owls, little owls, red kites, buzzards and many other species that I regularly see when out walking and running in the fields.

No

Representation ID: 93873

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carina Taylor

I do not support the proposals for South Warwickshire, there is poor road infrastructure, very poor transport links, very poor leisure facilities particularly in the Alcester area which has no swimming pool.

No

Representation ID: 93983

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Katie Gane

We need to protect our green belt land and not build in north leamington

Other

Representation ID: 94012

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Stuart Mace

Assessment of sites should be being made on actual situation rather than theoretical situation. The presence of a railway station does not automatically mean the development is sustainable as it would be in a town. Rural railway stations do not have regular services (due to national service timetables), adequate parking (they are located in small villages surrounded by existing houses), or accessible routes. Canal towpaths in the countryside are muddy, narrow and unlit yet they seem to be considered active travel routes. The theory seems to have been created by experts in town planning.

No

Representation ID: 94033

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Liz Loosmore

I do not agree with the proposed SG19 location being considered for inclusion because: 1. More suitable sites: the Bearley extension - north of Stratford, , easier road/rail links for urban areas where employment, etc already exists. 2. SG19 near to river (flooding) and not sustainable in terms of road structures, schools, health care, shopping - all traffic has to go over the ancient bridge for these amenities. 3. SG19 will lead to coalescence and urbanisation. Neighbourhood Plan was adopted with two strategic gaps in this area. Planning Appeal Inspectors have, in recent history, deemed it unacceptable to build here.

No

Representation ID: 94035

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Laura de Ponte

We object to HELAA Part A and HELAA Part B, in particular to the field behind Malthouse Lane (Between Malthouse Land and Terry's Pool Nature Reserve)
1. Inadequate road infrastructure, we have high volumes of visitors increasing congesting on our narrow roads
2. We are at the very end of a County Line and subject to all the ASB and drug dealing
3. Irreversible damage to greenbelt, destroying wildlife's habitat.
4. Our Medical Practice is small and would not cope with thousands of extra residents
5. Lack of public transport (1 train an hour if it is not cancelled)

No

Representation ID: 94039

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Philip Jeary

You have proffered here a presentation NOt a justification. What we have from WDC here is a word salad of meaningless topics that you hope will resonate and gain support. You have NOT provided evidence or real facts.

No

Representation ID: 94200

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Raymond Coyte

This scheme in Shipston will result in a greatly increased carbon footprint due to lack of jobs in the area.

The scheme does not comply with the Carbon Reduction Plan PPN 06/21 as published by the Cabinet Office in June 2021.

Yes

Representation ID: 94251

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Stephanie Taylor

I do broadly support the need for more houses however do not believe that enough consideration has been given in regard to the 3 key following points:

- Development of green belt (opens the door for further development on green belt, an goes against WDC's climate pledges)
- Provision of services, in particular regarding healthcare.
-decimation of wildlife habitats

No

Representation ID: 94254

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Ann Kingham

I strongly disagree to this development and find it unacceptable to destroy this green space with unacceptable traffic volume and air and noise pollution. I suffer anxiety and moved here from a city for the purpose of green space and quite. Human beings need space for well being.

No

Representation ID: 94357

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Belinda Brown

The SWLP degrades the protections of the statutory Green Belt, and there seems to be no data behind some of the 'sustainability' ratings. The SWLP potentially conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework which emphazises the protection of heritage assets and their settings. A SG04 development which can be seen from Kenilworth Castle (a protected English Heritage site) directly erodes the historical landscape and represents a loss of rural character. A less picturesque or historically immersive setting could lead to fewer visitors, reduced tourism revenue and less community benefits. There is also insufficient infrastructure to support urban expansion in Kenilworth.

Other

Representation ID: 94388

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Stoford Developments Ltd

There is no DtC between Stratford and Redditch/Bromsgrove Districts. All 3 LPAs are located within Area 9 of the WMSESS. Area 9 identifies a strategic sites need of 2-3 sites totaling 125ha. The South Warks Plan makes no attempts to meet this need, despite land within the District being located on the A435 corridor and junction 3 of the M42 - both within Area 9.

Yes

Representation ID: 94499

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Clement Silverman

n/a

Yes

Representation ID: 94576

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd

Agent: Turley

Yes, the clarifications are useful in explaining the consultation document, as well as the relationship between the Part 1 and Part 2 Plans.

Other

Representation ID: 94587

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Kevin Rogers MBE

I would like to know if this plan has been produced after being given housing targets by Central Government, and, as a result the best interests of the communities, sensible housing requirements and the environment and land are being severely compromised.

No

Representation ID: 94606

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sally Whitehead

I STRONGLY OBJECT to the proposals in Areas B1 and SG07.
The Hatton development would effectively merge Hatton/Hatton Station into Warwick and Hampton Magna. The enlargement of Hatton Park along Brownley Green Lane would begin to encroach on Beausale and the lanes around that area are simply not up to withstanding more traffic. Warwickshire is among the “most congested” parts of the UK – the Birmingham Road congestion will be relentless. Infrastructure costs would be huge. More suitable sites are available. WE MUST PROTECT OUR GREEN BELT for food security, wildlife, access to open spaces and to prevent urban sprawl.

Other

Representation ID: 94622

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Tesh

It needs to be clearer that the sites referred to in Figure 6 ‘Emerging Spatial Growth Strategy Options’ and Table 5 ‘Strategic Growth Areas’ are not a definitive list of sites to be included in the final SWLP but are sites proposed by landowners/developers

Yes

Representation ID: 94671

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Kineton Parish Council

no further comment