Yes

Representation ID: 97442

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Brenda Stewart

No additional points

Other

Representation ID: 97545

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Martin Winter

As a lay person it is very hard to engage with the volume and details of the plan. Given the significance of the plan, it would be helpful to express preferences for choices (I prefer option a to option b) to help inform decision makers.

No

Representation ID: 97645

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer James

I do not support the proposals in the South Warwickshire Local Plan.
The doctors surgery is over subscribed and it is already difficult to get an appointment.
The school is over subscribed and there is already not enough places at the school for children in the village.
The dentist are full and not taking on patients. The wait for appointments is long.
The road structure is already under extreme pressure with the village at the size it is and market traffic at weekends can bring the village to a complete stand still.

No

Representation ID: 97765

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Jeffery

N/A

No

Representation ID: 97913

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Andrea Clews

It happy with plans affecting Sambourne village with increased traffic therefore pollution.

Yes

Representation ID: 98124

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Cain

No comments

No

Representation ID: 98126

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Guy Hornsby

I do not agree.

No

Representation ID: 98171

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms XIAOYUN RONG

This extensive development raises significant concerns regarding environmental sustainability and community well-being. The plan's emphasis on large-scale housing projects may lead to the loss of green spaces, increased pressure on local infrastructure, and potential harm to the region's biodiversity. PrioritiSing such expansive growth could undermine efforts to achieve a climate-resilient and net-zero carbon South Warwickshire. Therefore, it is imperative to reconsider this project to ensure that development aligns with sustainable practices and genuinely enhances the quality of life for current and future residents.

Other

Representation ID: 98183

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Holly Farm Business Park

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

* Background to HFBP and 2 HELAA submissions which have been 'sifted out'. The sites located on the former RAF Honiley airfield should be reconsidered and the location possibly considered as a new settlement.
* The land is 'Grey Belt'.
* The serious shortfall of non strategic employment land that HFBP should help meet.
* The emerging plan is internally inconsistent approach to former airfields within the plan. The site of former RAF Honiley has been forgotten.
* Serious concerns on the robustness of the process being followed leading to uncertainty.

Yes

Representation ID: 98188

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr

It is very adequately comprehensive.

No

Representation ID: 98190

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Wassall

I object to the current plan to build around Hatton on greenbelt & farmland. We need to keep land for farming especially in the current world climate. Land around Hatton is constantly farmed.
We do not have enough infrastructure in this area to cope with the high level of homes proposed.
I recently filled in a form you sent on green space & mental health. Around Hatton many people use the open country side for this purpose ie cyclists, walkers & horse riding. This proposal goes against this policy.

No

Representation ID: 98192

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Garry Rollason

Priority should be given to pressing developers to start / complete work on those sites which already have planning permission. The new plan should include penalties for developers who do not start building on a site with planning permission within 2 years of permission being granted.

No

Representation ID: 98290

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Catesby Estates

Agent: Mr Will Whitelock

No – we are not supportive of the proposals for a two-part Plan in which only strategic sites (i.e. strategic allocations for new settlements and large scale urban extensions) are to be included in the Part 1 Plan. It represents a failure of both Councils to properly grasp the difficult issues and decisions that need to be made in terms of allocating sites at the local level and delivering the development needs of South Warwickshire. There is a requirement for smaller allocations to meet the identified housing needs in the shorter term, in accordance with Paragraph 72 of the Framework

No

Representation ID: 98309

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carol Armel

A disgraceful and ruin of beautiful countryside.


(,you have already done this in Stratford upon Avon,) the the traffic ,the roads will not be the lovely country lanes we know. Fields of sheep and cattle, listening to all the birds singing ,lovely walks along the canal,
It will end up with Warwick and all its beautiful countryside being one big building site,
Why do you need to keep building all these houses.? Do up old ones , old disused building sites, (if needed )
Don't ruin beautiful Britain's countryside , it's just so sad, please stop

No

Representation ID: 98321

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Moore

I object to the proposed 52 homes at SITE 600, Earlswood, for several reasons. The local sewerage works cannot handle the current capacity, leading to weekly tankers removing sewage. The area has safety concerns, particularly for children near the lakes. Power failures are frequent, raising questions about the electrical system's capacity for additional homes. The development impacts a nature reserve and could harm wildlife. Increased traffic poses risks to pedestrians, particularly schoolchildren. The narrow lanes struggle with service vehicles, and the area may not accommodate additional schoolchildren. This proposal constitutes overdevelopment and negatively alters the character of the area. Construction vehicles down narrow lanes cause damage and danger.

Other

Representation ID: 98449

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: SupremeTech

Agent: Delta Planning

SupremeTech raise concerns with the ongoing suggestion that the SWLP will be progressed in 2 parts. In our opinion a full single South Warwickshire Local Plan will be much clearer. If the Councils do not wish to use the SWLP to allocate small residential sites at non-strategic village level, that aspect could be addressed through an overall requirement figure being devised for non-strategic villages as a whole and criteria based policies, as well as through neighbourhood plans.

Please refer to our full response for further details.

Other

Representation ID: 98547

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Tibbles

Whilst comprehensive in it's scope, the depth and breadth of the supporting information and reasoning are beyond the capabilities of the general public to digest and comprehend. Therefore the ability to provide meaningful input or objections is limited to a select few - i.e. the proposals do not provide an equal opportunity to respond, due to technical complexity and accessibility

No

Representation ID: 98647

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Catesby Estates

Agent: Mr Will Whitelock

We are not supportive of the proposals for a two-part Plan in which only strategic sites (i.e. strategic allocations for new settlements and large scale urban extensions) are to be included in the Part 1 Plan. It represents a failure of both Councils to properly grasp the difficult issues and decisions that need to be made in terms of allocating sites at the local level and delivering the development needs of South Warwickshire. There is a requirement for smaller allocations to meet the identified housing needs in the shorter term, in accordance with Paragraph 72 of the Framework.

No

Representation ID: 98710

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Makestone Strategic Land - Hampton Lucy

Agent: Mr Jack Barnes

To make the Plan sound, the Plan must consider allocating small and medium scale sites, drawing on the pool of reserve sites already assessed and identified as part of the draft Site Allocations Plan (SAP). The Plan needs to demonstrate specific, deliverable sites for five years following the intended date of adoption (anticipated to be 2028-2033). One such site is Makestone Strategic Land’s site at Hampton Lucy (2024 Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment [HELAA] ref. 497 / Policy HAMP.A of the draft SAP).

Other

Representation ID: 98722

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Deeley Properties

Agent: Delta Planning

Deeley Properties raise concerns with the ongoing suggestion that the SWLP will be progressed in 2 parts. In our opinion a full single South Warwickshire Local Plan will be much clearer.

Please refer to our full response for further details.

Other

Representation ID: 98782

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: (1) AG Family Trust 2024 & (2) N. Holdsworth

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

*Land at Station Lane, Kingswood on behalf of (1) AG Family Trust 2024 (Site Ref: 514), and (2) Nigel Holdsworth (Site Ref: 622).
*The land is Grey Belt as it does not strongly contribute to any of the purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143 of the NPPF 2024
*Serious concerns on the robustness of the process: too many options; virtually no indication which sites might feature in the plan; introduction of new settlement locations including poor performing option to the south of Kingswood. All lead to uncertainty.

Other

Representation ID: 98786

Received: 06/03/2025

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 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: 98803

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Douglas Gordon

None

Yes

Representation ID: 98812

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Douglas Gordon

As long as residents views are taken into account.

Other

Representation ID: 98830

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: AC Lloyd - Sites 152, 156 & 157

Agent: Delta Planning

AC Lloyd raise one issue that the SWLP is to be progressed in two parts. A single SWLP would be much clearer, without the need to save selected existing policies. It would better meet the Government’s expectations to ensure sites are quickly allocated, permitted and developed to drive economic growth. A number of policy areas typically associated with Part2 plans are coming forward in Part 1. If the Councils don't wish to allocate small residential sites at the non-strategic village level, then that aspect could be addressed through an overall requirement figure, criteria-based policies, and neighbourhood plans. See full response.

No

Representation ID: 98875

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: MPTL

Agent: Harris Lamb

We have concerns with:
1) The length of the plan period
2) Meeting Development Needs
3) Carrying for Existing Allocations

Yes

Representation ID: 98958

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs JILL CHAMBERS

N/A

No

Representation ID: 99018

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: J & E Evans Properties Limited

Agent: Marrons

Concerns about the Two-Part 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. To speed up housing delivery, the Councils should abandon the two-part Plan approach and move to a single Local Plan which identifies its full requirement and allocate sites, one being Land at Field Farm, Pennyford Lane, Wootton Wawen.

Yes

Representation ID: 99059

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ladbrook Park Golf Club

Agent: Marrons

Ladbrook Park Golf Club support the proposal that the Plan sets a housing requirement for designated neighbourhood areas in accordance with paragraph 69 of the NPPF. Neighbourhood Plans have an important role in enabling small scale development to meet local needs within the rural parts of the area, and this should be supported.

No

Representation ID: 99135

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Alan Edwards

I object to the Bearley Wilmcote development for the following reasons.
We have been informed by the local councillor that there is no requirement in this area for any additional houses
This would change the nature of the local villages, especially historic Wilmcote with its links to William Shakespear, Graded buildings and conservation areas, turning the area into an urban sprawl.
The infrastructure is not suitable for the huge increase in houses. Roads, railway, doctors, sewerage, flood risk.The countryside will turn into concrete, loss of Greenbelt, Farmland, wildlife etc
Brownfield areas nearer to existing infrastructure would make more sense