Other

Representation ID: 102824

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough - Lighthorne Road, Kineton

Agent: Turley

Requesting Further Clarification

No

Representation ID: 102827

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Agent: Marrons

Bloor Homes express some concerns regarding the Plan's capacity to deliver the development needed to meet its targets.

Other

Representation ID: 102829

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough - Sycamore Close, Stockton

Agent: Turley

Requesting further clarification

Other

Representation ID: 102836

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough - Kineton Road, Wellesbourne

Agent: Turley

Requesting further clarification

Other

Representation ID: 102847

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough - Wellesbourne Road, Wellesbourne

Agent: Turley

Requesting further clarification

No

Representation ID: 102868

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Giles Harrison-Hall

The purpose of the green belt is to prevent urban sprawl. This plan’s premise permits urban spread into agricultural areas beyond the green belt, and to require those who live there to commute across the green belt which is an unsound policy

Other

Representation ID: 102953

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Deeley Homes

Agent: Delta Planning

Deeley Homes 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, without the need to save selected existing policies.

Deeley Homes strongly feel that the SWLP should identify and allocate small residential sites at non-strategic village level in order to meet the immediate housing need and the potential to meet the needs of neighbouring authorities in the wider housing market area.

Please refer to full response for further details.

No

Representation ID: 103069

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Julie Burton

Plan will have a destructive impact on the environment

No

Representation ID: 103147

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough

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 West of Warwick Racecourse.

Other

Representation ID: 103228

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Scott Haberton

The question is not clear enough for me to give a confident answer. What is the introduction, specifically? What proposals?

No

Representation ID: 103389

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Browne

Development on this scale at Wilmcote/ Bearley is not sustainable. There will be an exponential increase in traffic on A3400 and increased traffic through Wilmcote village to use the Ridgeway. The infrastructure in and around Stratford is already struggling to support the population and there are minimal facilities in Wilmcote & Bearley. It is entirely in green belt and farmland, woodlands and other habitats for nature will be lost. The high density type development is not suitable for this location.

Yes

Representation ID: 103513

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Oli Lorimer

Hi

No

Representation ID: 103518

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Oli Lorimer

No

No

Representation ID: 103556

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Loretta Andrews

Rail transportation via Lapworth, and other village stations, is currently not good and there is very limited parking.

Yes

Representation ID: 103858

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Jessica Crook

No further comment

No

Representation ID: 103904

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Victoria Smith

Local job opportunities are minimal and declining.
The Market Sq is popular with tourists and part of the Conservation zone.
FLOODING is a huge problem. Every year, Shipston is flooded.
Inadequate sewage/drainage facility. My home has been flooded by raw sewage twice since new build properties were built up the Campden Rd, causing mass distress and devaluation. 2020.
Schools are over-subscribed.
No train station and miles from motorway.
Lack of amenities for children.

No

Representation ID: 103907

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Samuel Parker

Site SG05 should not be used for development. This area in Lillington is used by many dog walkers and general walkers as a nice scenic route. Small businesses are near the area which rely on the trade of dog walkers. Cannot remove large green spaces near residential areas used for walking in groups or with pets. There are many better options other than SG05.

Yes

Representation ID: 104088

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr GREG MCDOUGALL

N/A

No

Representation ID: 104146

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Julia Kirby

The impact on the local environment, increase in traffic and air pollution is already a corn without increasing this due to a huge housing estate.
To increase the population of Studley I feel will put added pressures on schools, GP services and our local hospital, The Alex
The lack of green areas not only has a direct effect on the environment but people’s physical health, wellness, wellbeing and mental heath. To take away this green area would be detrimental to all of the above

No

Representation ID: 104204

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Craig Stone

This report has been put together with a narrow and biased brief. It is unnecessarily over complicated to navigate around and feedback, this sadly gives the impression this was deliberate to minimise feedback levels.
It has not been significantly advertised/promoted, I know of a number of brown and grey field sites that were never approached for consideration, attacking green field locations is completely unacceptable and hypocritical when suggesting a greener better environment

No

Representation ID: 104262

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Cooke

I strongly oppose the proposed development sites X1, SG09, SG10, SG15, SG16, and the fields to the east and west of Sherbourne due to their negative impact on our villages. These plans contradict the South Warwickshire Local Plan (SWLP) by failing to provide sustainable infrastructure, harming the environment, and damaging village culture.

I believe these developments are inappropriate for our villages and should be rejected in favour of better-suited locations.

Other

Representation ID: 104514

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Dunning

We need a whole system strategy for Warwick DC. I support development in all zones provided these 3 requirements are met:
High density homes allowed only, centred around transit development
Public transport infrastructure overhaul
Active travel infrastructure overhaul

All of the other proposals in the plans are worded in a way that they sound reasonable, but they are NOT ENOUGH.

No

Representation ID: 104738

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Dan Brock

I object to the Introduction section of the South Warwickshire Local Plan due to flawed housing projections, vague sustainability criteria, and inadequate infrastructure planning. The plan lacks clear environmental protections, risks harming biodiversity, and fails to address public concerns effectively. It also appears inconsistent with national policies and could negatively impact local businesses and community cohesion. Until these issues are resolved, I strongly oppose any development that may affect my property and the surrounding area.

No

Representation ID: 104741

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Alice Burton

N/A

No

Representation ID: 104850

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Susan Clarke

We have enough new houses and SG20 doesn’t have the infrastructure to support its existing population.

No

Representation ID: 105265

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Lockley Homes

Agent: Goldfinch Town Planning Services (West Midlands)

We strongly oppose the Councils' proposed approach to the Local Plan, which involves producing a separate Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the SWLP. This will lead to confusion and significant delays in delivering the Local Plan across South Warwickshire, especially as local communities face a severe housing shortage and post-COVID-19 economic challenges. We also object to the exclusion of small and medium-sized housing sites from Stage 1, as they are crucial for addressing the housing crisis. Instead, the Council should produce a single version of the SWLP Local Plan, as we noted in our Issues & Options consultation response.

No

Representation ID: 106183

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Acres Land & Planning

The SWLP has taken 5 years to reach this stage and 7 years by the current timetable to reach adoption. Part 2 will presumably not be adopted until well into the 2030s. Many of the policies are outdated following the revised 2024 NPPF and continuing changes will undermine the Government's target to deliver Plans within 30 months. The Preferred Options is clearly not at an advanced stage, with tentative and vague policies/proposals and a 'pick'n'mix' list of large sites. It is unclear what will happen with Stratford-on-Avon's SAP, and after 6 years delay it seems sites will be put back into the pot for the SWLP. Two allocated self-build sites have taken 4 years to get outline consent because of 'limited weight'. The SWLP is focused on large-scale development in proposed New Settlements and Strategic Growth Locations which will distort development to volume builders with standardised 'anywhere' types of new development, while squeezing smaller local builders out of the market.

Yes

Representation ID: 106632

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Warwickshire Property and Development Group

Agent: Framptons

Yes, we broadly support the proposals in the introduction but have some concerns relating to what is currently proposed under a two-part Local Plan and its implications for housing delivery in the early years of the Plan period.
Given the scale of the housing and employment requirement for the two Councils, and a recognition that strategic urban extensions and /or new settlements are likely to form the main element of the spatial development strategy in the SWLP, WPDG support the preparation of a plan period extending to 2050. This approach is also broadly consistent with NPPF paragraph 22, that advises: ‘Where larger scale developments such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns form part of the strategy for the area, policies should be set within a vision that looks further ahead (at least 30 years), to take into account the likely timescale for delivery.’
Rather than have a single comprehensive joint Local Plan, we note the Councils intention that the plan will be broken down into separate parts. Whilst we have no objection in principle to the preparation of a two-part Local Plan, we do not support the Councils proposals in their current form 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 SWLP.
According to the Reg18 SWLP this consultation sets out the "Preferred Options" identified by both Councils for meeting the future development needs of South Warwickshire over the period to 2050 (Para 1.3). Whilst it is common for local planning authorities to consult on a few options at this stage in the local plan process, with a clearly defined preferred option being presented, we are concerned that having 24 Strategic Growth Locations (SGL's) and 12 potential new settlement locations in the Reg18 SWLP, not only does this result in a level of development far in excess of the requirements of South Warwickshire but means that the document in part reads more like an Issues and Options document. This is a cause for concern as we believe it will be difficult to move forward to a Pre-Submission version of the SWLP with details of specific sites for development and associated infrastructure requirements.
While we recognise the importance of ensuring that there is no further slippage in the programme for bringing the SWLP forward, within the above context there is a risk that the Plan when submitted will not be found sound. Therefore, unless the Councils have confidence that they can bring forward a Pre-Submission Local Plan (Part 1) with a clear spatial development strategy that includes an appropriate mix of site allocations best able to meet the housing needs of South Warwickshire over the whole plan period i.e. in the immediate and longer term, consideration, it should consider undertaking a further focused Reg18 consultation exercise on a more focused series of spatial development options ahead of the Reg19 Pre-Submission.

Other

Representation ID: 106888

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Historic England

In relation to the Sustainability Appraisal (SA), we refer you to Historic England’s Advice Note 8: Sustainability Appraisal and Strategic Environmental Assessment, 2016 (HEAN8):

https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/sustainability-appraisal-and-strategic-environmental-assessment-advice-note-8/heag036-sustainability-appraisal-strategic-environmental-assessment.pdf/

It is unclear from the SA Report whether the Council’s ‘Heritage and Settlement Sensitivity Assessment’ (September 2022) was utilised in the assessment of cultural heritage and we would suggest that this study, and any further heritage evidence, are fully utilised when the SA is revisited.

Historic England welcomes SA Objective 5: Cultural Heritage, and is pleased that non-designated heritage assets and their settings are encompassed within the decision-making criteria. However, in terms of the indicators included in the SA Framework (Appendix A of the SA Report), we suggest that the HER is also utilised.

We are pleased to see that all of the Strategic Growth Locations (SGLs) and the potential New Settlements have been assessed in relation to heritage impacts and we would agree with the assessment of New Settlement C1 (Land south of Kingswood) that this is the most sensitive location in terms of the potential for substantial harm to the significance of heritage assets. Therefore, we would not wish to see this new settlement location taken forward to the Regulation 19 stage Plan.

We would strongly agree with the recommendations included in Ch.9 of the Interim SA Report in relation to SA objective 5 (cultural heritage), that Heritage Impact Assessments and archaeological surveys are carried out for the SLGs and the New Settlement options.

Yes

Representation ID: 107133

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England welcomes the submission of HRA and SEA for the local Plan.
Natural England would expect significant mitigation measures to be secured to protect these
designated sites from the proposed new settlements BW and F1 due to their size/scale and
proximity.
Criteria-based policies are required to guide development and should include application of the mitigation hierarchy and how the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of development on designated sites will be addressed. Where mitigation or avoidance is not possible the site should not be allocated.