Other

Representation ID: 95051

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lynette Sutton

Difficult to follow.
Quite complicated to fully understand

No

Representation ID: 95092

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Ms C Clifton

As above

No

Representation ID: 95205

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jason Giblen

I object to proposal of building on land HELAA part A land off Malthouse Lane.
This land is a haven for wildlife such as newts, shrews, deer some of which are protected and would loose their habitats
Detrimental impact on amenities which are already strained; schools, sewage, road network
Loss of area of beauty which is enjoyed by residents and visitors daily
Significant traffic and parking issues already which would be increased greatly
Threatens loss of privacy and overshadowing to current properties
Lack of property need as current properties for sale on Malthouse Lane not selling

No

Representation ID: 95235

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Douglas coote

There is a potential for more flooding in surrounding areas if the development in this elevated position at Ardens Grafton and Temple Grafton is considered.
The agricultural grade 1 and 2 land is currently actively farmed and are council farms. These should not be sold for development as it is a gateway into farming for young farmers of the future

Yes

Representation ID: 95256

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Alamo

Agent: Harris Lamb

A longer plan period accords with guidance para 22 of the NPPF. A two part plan will delay the identification of smaller non-strategic allocation which should be addressed through a policy provision to allow such sites to come forward in advance of the part 2 plan.

No

Representation ID: 95277

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Ford

1. Road Infrastructure – Already totally inadequate
2. Green belt land / Wild life destruction, including resident deer
3. Severe lack of Public Transportation in the area, leading to increase in traffic
4. Severe lack of Policing support, with likely increase in ASB
5. GP / Medical Facilities – Already over stretched

I don’t believe any houses built in the proposed location would be deemed affordable housing, and there are many other non-green belt sites far more suitable area, with better infrastructure, with less disruption to local wildlife.

Yes

Representation ID: 95399

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Wynford Grant

Useful background

No

Representation ID: 95494

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Karen Clegg

Land South of Chichester Lane, Hampton Magna REFID: 55.
I oppose this site as it will break up purpose built landscaped land, trees and hedges which are part of the green belt. It is unsustainable to continue taking land out of the green belt to hit sustainability targets. It will lead to loss of privacy as our homes will be overlooked, contributing to reduction of light and creating unwanted noise and smell.
There were previously water and sewerage issues on the Hampton Trove site so building here would only exacerbate these problems.

Yes

Representation ID: 95499

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Britton

Design of residential development and materials used should respect the local vernacular. The site layout should also have an eye to vistas possibly closed by key buildings some having a communal use.
.

No

Representation ID: 95620

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: David Wilson Homes

Agent: Harris Lamb

We suggest that the plan period should be extended to 2055 to allow for a 30 year plan period as per the guidance in para 22 of the Framework. We are concerned that preparing a two part plan will unduly delay development coming forward in other locations that are not new settlements or strategic growth locations. Sites in the SAP should be considered suitable for allocation.

No

Representation ID: 95654

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: mr david nicholas

i consider that the C1 area is completely unrealistic as a proposed site as the location is in a rural area with inadequate infrastructure and will negatively impact the green belt . the roads are not compatible with the higher level of traffic and would lead to dangerous levels of driving. The area is used extensively for leisure cycling and walking. The local services of schools and the 2 doctor GP surgery are completely impractical for such growth

Yes

Representation ID: 95889

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Tesh

yes

No

Representation ID: 95993

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Kiril Kolev

We will lose 600 hectares of farm land, take away public views from the tops of the burton Dassett hills, deeply harm the wild life, impact the local farming increase traffic from the proposed site the, potential damage to heritage of the local villages that parts of date back to the 1200 if adequate infrastructure is built. Increase in CO2, no infrastructure to cope with the extra rain water and the clay soil once saturated will create floodings. Not enough schools and aurgeries. Lastly it will kill the small friendly village communities.

No

Representation ID: 95994

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Helen Greenly

I object to the destruction of our green belt, biodiversity prime farm land and food security
I object to the destruction of habitat
I object to the urban creep, when brownfield sites are available.
I object to the plans that do not take account the needs of current and future residents
I object to the increase in air pollution, the lack of affordable green transport provision
I object that current inadequate infrastructure, schools, hospitals, roads, railways is assumed to be capable of supporting these plans
I object.

No

Representation ID: 96077

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Suzanne Mccarthy

We are a remote part of Stratford, little or no usable bus service. No local schools within walking distance. We live in an area of outstanding beauty, roads are not suitable with the influx of visitors as it is .,without vast estates being built .no shops ( except a local 1) train line that runs every hour only and they are cancelled at the drop of a hat . Need houses to be built closer to amenities. Schools, doctors , hospitals .shops , libraries .none of these are really accessible from here without own transport .

Yes

Representation ID: 96266

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Newbould

na

Yes

Representation ID: 96275

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: John Dinnie

It should be clearer that you have to submit each bit. A lot of what I have already entered including attachments has been lost.

Yes

Representation ID: 96358

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Julia Shearing

Too many houses ruining a once beautiful market town. no ring road, far too many huge juggernauts coming over the bridge from Long Marston constantly causing tail backs all the way to Clifford Garden Centre, Waitrose, up Bordon Hill, to main Warwick roundabout etc. incredible poor planning and whoever is in charge of Road, Highways should be ashamed.

No

Representation ID: 96386

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Bloor Homes Western

Agent: Marrons

Concerns about the Part 1 and Part 2 Plan approach.
The Plan must identify deliverable sites for the first five years post-adoption (2028-2033). While existing commitments help, new allocations are needed.
For strategic allocations in Part 1 to contribute to 5YHLS, clear evidence of housing completions within five years is required.
Delivery may be delayed if detailed policies, masterplans, and design codes follow in the Part 2.
The Councils should consider whether it needs to supplement Strategic Policies in Part 1, and whether a Part 2 Plan is the correct approach if early delivery of strategic allocations is anticipated.

No

Representation ID: 96399

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Neil Haywood

Should not be giving any more green belt land for housing developments.
Too many new houses in and around Kenilworth already.

Yes

Representation ID: 96462

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Colin Stewart

Yes

Yes

Representation ID: 96475

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Cotswold District Council

No comments on the introduction

No

Representation ID: 96487

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Ashley Ha

I strongly object to the proposed development due to significant negative impacts on quality of life. Increased noise, air pollution, and loss of privacy will directly affect residents. The plan fails to guarantee supporting infrastructure, such as roads, schools, and healthcare, before construction begins. Additionally, the loss of green space contradicts the plan’s sustainability goals. The Preferred Options document holds limited planning weight at this stage, and I hope the Council to reconsider site allocations, prioritising brownfield sites over residential areas. Public concerns must be genuinely addressed, not just formally noted.

Yes

Representation ID: 96537

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Shipston Town Council

Supportive of 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 attributes of 'Growth Corridors'. 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 it seems as though this has driven its SG designation.

Yes

Representation ID: 96735

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Alcester Town Council

Alcester Town Council, Arrow with Weethley Parish Council, Kinwarton Parish Council, Wixford Parish Council and Great Alne Parish Council note the information included in this Chapter.

No

Representation ID: 96950

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Jeffery

N/A

Other

Representation ID: 96997

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Victoria Alcock

No, I do not broadly support the proposals. I support a few of the proposals. I am only supporting the new town proposals. No new houses in Stratford town as the infrastructure just cant cope.

New settlements will at least provide new schools, roads, doctors all thats needed

Yes

Representation ID: 97314

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lucy White

N/A

No

Representation ID: 97421

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rhiannan Lewis

No

No

Representation ID: 97428

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes

Agent: Harris Lamb

we support the plan period. We are concerned that the decision to prepare a part 2 plan could delay delivery on non-strategic sites in lower order but sustainable settlements in advance of the part 2 plan being adopted. We are seeking a policy or mechanism that would allow smaller sites in these settlements to come forward in advance of the plan being adopted.