No

Representation ID: 88289

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Layla Howe

The Greenbelt needs to be protected! We’re losing so much countryside due to constant building- enough is enough!!

No

Representation ID: 88298

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs W Stanley

I do not want any building work on the fields or surrounding area prosoed.. We would like it left alone, we don't want it being ruined.

Yes

Representation ID: 88303

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Claire Short

N/A

No

Representation ID: 88311

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Barrie Hayles

The amount of proposed building and development for the south Warwickshire area is far too great and to give only until early March for lay people to try to read the vast number of pages with all the content, references and abbreviations to attempt to understand, does not make a meaningful response from residents possible.

No

Representation ID: 88351

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jenny White

Not supportive of the housing (SG22) in Middletown/Studley as it will increase congestion too much, will ruin the atmosphere and peoples enjoyment of the area. The area would become overdeveloped and merge Studley with surrounding villages. There is already too much traffic for the roads through the narrow lanes of Sambourne and Middletown, and new houses here will make the roads dangerous.

No

Representation ID: 88372

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Viki McNulty

Cubbington is a village with beautiful fields around it. It is also a high risk flood area. We do not need more houses spoiling our surroundings and adding additional pressure to our roads and networks

Yes

Representation ID: 88433

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Maurice Stokes

This is an important of a democratic process. All comment should be read and if all say an alternative should be done then it is not the right of the government to impose on the will of the people.

Yes

Representation ID: 88469

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sue Russell

These seem suitable.

No

Representation ID: 88584

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Elliot

Do not agree the proposals for Lapworth are not substainable.
There is limited network to support thirds developments. Limited transport, roads and schooling and doctors. We have already had an extra 50 odd houses added to the village.
There are much better brownfield sites available nearer towns and better transport areas more suitable

No

Representation ID: 88762

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Dawn Clutton

HS2 has already inflicted considerable damage to the local greenbelt land and the consequences of that. Increased traffic on roads around schools compromises child safety. Insufficient infrastructure GPs already not taking on new patients, not enough schools. Development in south Leamington is clear evidence of the countryside devastation caused by too many houses. Plus the increased traffic there has caused chaos and compromised highway safety.

Yes

Representation ID: 88778

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

If additional land comes forward relating to new settlements or growth areas it should mean that a corresponding amount of land is removed from elsewhere.
Gysy sites should be carved out of any large allocations and not be free standing so they can contribute to and benefit from new infrastructure

Other

Representation ID: 88836

Received: 18/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Terence Chinn

The whole process or recording and viewing comments is too complex and probably excludes members of the public without the patience or facilities I have!

Other

Representation ID: 88875

Received: 18/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Matthew Packwood-Ace

I object to development of the southern side of Stratford-upon-Avon, specifically site SG19. The transport across the southern side of Stratford-upon-Avon is already heavily congested, with only the Clopton and Severn Meadows bridges able to cross the avon and causing bottlenecks. With the Southern Relief road on hold, no further development should be permitted until a transport plan has been resolved.
I also object as the land adjacent to Trinity Way is currently used as amenity land by the local community and would result in the loss of green space for the exercise and enjoyment of the residents.

Yes

Representation ID: 88905

Received: 18/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Currie

The opportunity to feedback on this crucial issue is absolutely vital.
However, there is a tremendous amount of detail and the 7th of March is a very short window for consultation.

Yes

Representation ID: 88906

Received: 18/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Gerry Jackson

I don't understand what this bit needs. I'm providing details to be able to log in.

Yes

Representation ID: 88955

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Wendy Bannerman

no comment

Yes

Representation ID: 88977

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

if additional land is identifies adjacent to existing allocations there should be an opportunity to substitute it for land already allocated. It should not be additional.
Land for gypsies should be part of large allocations to ensure minorities have easy access to schools and other amenities. It should not be in isolated locations where is easy to be socially excluded.
Renewable energy infrastructure should be integrated with all new development - on houses and commercial buildings in order to minimise the need to use agricultral and other land.

No

Representation ID: 89182

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mr William Wood

The road infastructure in the vicinity of Ashorne and the surrounding areas simply can not take the proposed amount of development! Rush hour is gridlock around here with JlR employees going home and local people returning home to the already abundant new builds we have around this area. The roads are not equipped to take these proposals and it will quite simply RUIN the area!

Yes

Representation ID: 89185

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Glaze

Moved to Wilmcote November 2020 to avoid building works adjacent to our house in Birmingham. We are now faced with a worse situation owing to the building proposal submitted by South Warwickshire Council.We are devastated by the potential effect on us once again except on a colossal scale. We believe this proposal has so many negatives and should not proceed.

No

Representation ID: 89359

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Tim Twynam

Do not use Green Belt; use appropriate available sites ; plan in conjunction with general infrastructure planning; don't create rat runs in existing small villages .Plan holistically ! Protect the ongoing attractiveness of the villages and towns of Warwickshire.

Yes

Representation ID: 89388

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Amanda Knight

No additional comments

Yes

Representation ID: 89486

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sidney Syson

My comment is that this consultation is too long. While I agree with the need and aim to consult on as many matters as possible I think it should have been split into 3: potential growth sites, potential new settlements and draft policies. It would make it easier for those who do not want to respond to everything. It would also be easier to find one's way back to where one left it.

Did anyone involved in preparing this consultation actually sit down and do a dummy run of responding? I wonder how many hours that would have taken them.

Yes

Representation ID: 89720

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Compton Verney

n/a

No

Representation ID: 89766

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Martlew

I think the project is mis guided.

No

Representation ID: 89773

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Gareth Puckey

Building houses between Weston and Hunnigham would not only ruin more greenbelt, after HS2 has already decimated the landscape, it would also ruin the water levels around the river leam which already floods very often.

No

Representation ID: 89798

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mr SIMON BEACHAM

Document is far too long, contrived, complicated and difficult for elderly folk to fathom out?

No

Representation ID: 89962

Received: 22/02/2025

Respondent: Mr David Ramsden

Firstly this site seems to have been deliberately designed to make it as difficult as possible to access proposals and comment on them / object.

No

Representation ID: 89986

Received: 22/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Beaumont

The proposed houses over the bridge at Shipston are ridiculous the tip is extremely well used and the traffic over the bridge would be horrendous and unable to cope. This would be disastrous with the bridge area floods which is on a regular basis and the houses would be cut off. Re the area near Oldbutt Road the rain water floods now during heavy rainfall since the addition of the recent houses the current systems just can't cope and water floods down Oldbutt Road into the houses. Also the medical centre is unable to cope with the volume of people.

Other

Representation ID: 89991

Received: 22/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Katie Crawley

I agree that we do need to build affordable housing particularly for young local people providing the infrastructure is put in place to support the additional population plus the main issues regarding flooding and lack of maintenance to drains and sewers must be addressed before any further building especially to support local businesses in the high street who flood regularly and can no longer get flood insurance for their businesses. The high street not to be the relief road for M40-a north bound slip road to m40 north of the town would prevent a lot of traffic from HGV vehicles.

No

Representation ID: 90037

Received: 22/02/2025

Respondent: D Carter

I profoundly disagree with building on the green belt. It is a huge detriment to wildlife, mental health carbon sink and flooding. With the devastating of the area between Leamington and the the M40 it is imperative the green belt around Milverton is retained.