No

Representation ID: 102528

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Margaret Halligan

See my previous comment on people being completely unaware of the plans and the consultation and only being made aware by another local resident making a comment on Facebook- this is not acceptable

No

Representation ID: 102619

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Christine Easton

Again 25 years is too long.
HS 2 is an ongoing issue
Change of councils is an issue
Change of government's is an issue.

Other

Representation ID: 102640

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Summers Holdings Ltd

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

The Plan is in 2 parts which means that our clients might not find out whether their site forms part of the plan for many years. The distinction between Parts 1 and 2 is unclear. Existing draft plans - such as the Stratford Site Allocations appear to be left 'hanging' in a state where they are not completed. The plan looking forward 25 years is supported but it is highly unlikely that any significant contribution will be forthcoming from a new settlement for a decade. Site 515 is immediately available.

Yes

Representation ID: 102657

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Vos

Broadly support - with concerns about suitability of some sites and the lack of detail on infrastrcuture

Other

Representation ID: 102698

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Elizabeth White

‘You may respond to as many, or as few of these draft policy directions, draft policies, strategic growth locations, and potential new settlement locations as you wish.’

Does not mention here commenting on ‘a specific site proposal or the HELAA results’ (4.1).

No

Representation ID: 102711

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Nick Alexander

People are not able to have their say on matters due to the complexity of this document. I can’t even work out whether I am on the portal or not!

No

Representation ID: 102753

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Browne

Scoring of areas is flawed as:
(1) Not sufficiently up to date to take into account other changes in the areas that have already happened or are planned. An up to date assessment must be taken before any decisions can be made.
(2) Not given any consideration to the impact on the Green Belt due to HS2
(3) Not considered the impact on a grade 1 listed site of Kenilworth Castle.
(4) Inadequate consideration given to how the current infrastructure could cope with the proposed changes, namely local roads and amenities.

No

Representation ID: 102843

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jane Sale

A lot of the proposed sites are on green belt land, so yet more of the countryside is being destroyed. People pay a premium for their properties to live in the open space. The roads surrounding are already really busy, more houses will just add to this. Also, what about schools and healthcare practices. They are designed atm to cater for the number of houses in the area, not hundreds more. It’s already a struggle to get a doctor’s appointment at the best of times. Will new schools, doctors etc be built for the influx of people?

No

Representation ID: 102905

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Giles Harrison-Hall

You require binary choice when often the response would be more nuanced

Other

Representation ID: 102972

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Chesterton and Kingston Parish Meeting

This consultation is not geared to the general public. It is not user friendly and is difficult for the layman to engage. Attendance at one of the public sessions proved to be unsatisfactory as it was not hosted well...difficult to discuss how the sites were arrived at and clear that the preferred sites are rather more arbitrary. How can land along side railway lines with no railway stations and only road infrastructure I.E Preferred site F1 be deemed to meet sustainability objectives?

Other

Representation ID: 103114

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Summers Family

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

The Plan is in 2 parts which means that our clients might not find out whether their site forms part of the plan for many years. The distinction between Parts 1 and 2 is unclear. Existing draft plans - such as the Stratford Site Allocations appear to be left 'hanging' in a state where they are not completed.

The plan looking forward 25 years is supported but it is highly unlikely that any significant contribution will be forthcoming from a new settlement for a decade.

Site 518 is immediately available.

No

Representation ID: 103139

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr philip cooper

The scale of increase is far more than can be achieved. Proportional growth is reasonable not an increase of over 100%

No

Representation ID: 103361

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Abigail Haley

Warwickshire already has approximately 15 years’ reserves excluding recycled aggregates. The UK is one of the leaders in recycled aggregate usage in Europe - 28% of annual demand is met this way.

In addition, a new quarry will have other serious impacts on all our communities:
increased traffic, pollution and noise
greater risk of flooding
harmful airborne particulates causing health risks to nearby communities
loss of best quality farmland
increased food insecurity
loss of heritage & wildlife

No

Representation ID: 103374

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Joe Rukin

This consultation is exceptionally unwieldy. the idea that you have to submit a response and a summary is grossly unfair. It suggests that you're only actually going to bother reading the summary.

Other

Representation ID: 103384

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Sarah Shalgosky

The proposed areas of new housing and development include important local wildlife sites, and loss of these sites and increased activity in these areas would threaten biodiversity.

No

Representation ID: 103526

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Oli Lorimer

No

No

Representation ID: 103535

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Stephinson

SG06 West of A452 Kenilworth Rd prone to flooding see Gov Flooding Map, removal of field soak aways, close proximity to River Avon, warming climate more rain, exasperates damage.
3,000 houses = ~4,290 additional vehicles, these can be accommodated? In 2016 ~13,000 vehicles into L/Spa, ~11,000 to Coventry. Increases risk to K2L cycling lane.
Have you asked Warwick Hospital, GP Surgeries, NHS Dentists they can support another ~7,200 people?
Is Warwickshire enabling more food imports with the loss of farming land, undermining self-sufficiency?
Has a thorough study been undertaken, listing associated costs, to properly address notable environmental and infrastructural challenges?

No

Representation ID: 103630

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Paula Kiley

Why are you supporting so many houses to be built?
Why are you allowing greenbelt to be destroyed?
Why are you allowing Coventry & Warwickshire to be geographically joined up?

I disagree with the proposal to build on greenbelt and to build additional houses unnecessarily.

Poor infrastructure is in place as there are inadequate health services including GP services to support influx of people in the locality.

No

Representation ID: 103714

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Tindale

This is a poor consultation document, it is difficult to read and very complex. Simply allow us to comment on the proposals as a whole. This consultation should be reset and undertaken in a more appropriate, user friendly and accessible manner so that normal people can access it and comment.

No

Representation ID: 103839

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Eleanor Caudwell

There is no need to designate this (long Marston, Clifford chambers for more new build housing.

No

Representation ID: 103863

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Michelle Blackburn

I do not agree with any other housing proposals. These proposals are destroying the country side, the nature and adding to pollution and increased flooding to areas that already have flooding issues.
Not to mention the devalue of my property which is situated in one of the villages, I purchased my house because of the views and this proposal wants to build houses on the land at the back of my property!!!!!
You have also made this portal extremely difficult to find and for people to have their say, why make it so hard????

No

Representation ID: 103868

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Maddy Gralak

I strongly disagree with the proposals around Hampton Magna (reference IDs: 245, 119, 621, 68, 233, 95, 573, 55) and Hatton B1. The is no sufficient infrastructure to support the developments and it would put excessive pressure on local amenities. It is also building on green belt land and there is no consideration for the wild belt. Such excessive development would destroy the local area and it would lose everything about what makes it a peaceful place to live.

https://www.warwickshirewildlifetrust.org.uk/south-warwickshire-local-plan

No

Representation ID: 103936

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Olivia McCullough

As a local resident I do not support the proposals to build additional houses around Hatton as it the roads couldn't cope with the traffic, our countryside will be destroyed and there is not the infrastructure of schools, shops, doctors to support anywhere near the numbers proposed.

No

Representation ID: 104001

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Charn Gill

Broad Lane is already an extremely busy road with houses lining either side. The speed limit of 40 is dangerous, there are extremely poor paths for pedestrians which are narrow and with speeding cars and lorries it is unsafe. Further development in the area of Wood End and Tanworth-in-Arden would make this road unsustainable with the amount of traffic. It would also become even more unsafe than it already is! It is already too dangerous for children to walk to school, for commuters to walk to the train station. This situation will only get worse.

No

Representation ID: 104046

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Charlotte Moss

I object to the following sites (with reasons detailed below):
-SG15
-SG16
-X1
-Westham Lane, Barford
-Land at Long Meadow, Westham Lane, Barford, CV35 8DP
-Land adjoining College Farmhouse, Wasperton, Warwick, CV35 8EB
-Glebe Farm, Wellesbourne Road, Wasperton, CV35 8EE

Other

Representation ID: 104155

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Rachel Pope

I appreciate that you have tried very hard to make the process accessible both online and in public libraries. However, this consultation comprises much more than just the consultation document itself, and even that is 187 pages long. The number of supporting documents and the level of detail and specialist terminology make it too onerous for lay people to digest fully, putting people off and resulting in fewer or partial replies. By contrast, developers will have teams of people dedicated to responding comprehensively and with the appropriate terminology. This is understandable but should be taken into account when analysing responses.

No

Representation ID: 104223

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Craig Stone

insufficient time for a very large scale set of projects, suspect the consultation time is too short considering development rules, feedback process is not simple further adding to low feedback bias.
call for sites biases to those who know with out proactive look to brown and grey field sites above and beyond green field

No

Representation ID: 104236

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Dale Fitzsimmons

Kenilworth and surrounding areas has had far too much housing development in recent years for the size of town it is. The town’s schools, GP, dentists, nurseries, roads, parks, car park etc cannot cope as it currently is.
The council must consider alternative sites away from Kenilworth until the new developments & communities have settled.
Furthermore the addition of even more new build houses de-values the entire area through cheap house building, and flooding the area with more houses & people.
Further developments is NOT essential for Kenilworth, and MUST be avoided.

No

Representation ID: 104241

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Chris Greenly

I object to the proposals:
Destruction of our green belt, biodiversity and misuse of prime farm land endangering food security.
Destruction of habitat and unchecked urban creep when alternative brownfield sites are available and should be prioritised for new homes.
Failure to take into account the needs of current and future residents
Increased air pollution exacerbated by the lack of affordable Green transportation.
Impact on an already over stretched local infrastructure - schools, hospitals, roads, GP provision and railways which will not be able support the increase of homes in a rural area proposed in the south Warwickshire local plan.

No

Representation ID: 104522

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Susan Hood

Call for sites is very narrow - does not consider other smaller sites, infill or the impact of taking green belt land etc..

Commenting on this plan is incredibly difficult and not easy to understand/do.
The piecemeal/section by section approach makes it unclear how to make observations.