Other

Representation ID: 94015

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Stuart Mace

The consultation seems to have received very poor publicity, at least on the outer edges of Warwick District. Had it not been for intervention by the Green Party there would not have been very much local awareness of the plan, which has caused significant concern amongst the affected communities. Clearer and more prominent promotion is required.

No

Representation ID: 94034

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Liam Carter

There is not enough infrastructure in the local areas for such size of development. I have moved recently to a small new build estate and unfortunately that has already stressed the local doctors facilities, roads, schools and not to mention business. Personally moved away from an expensive, overcrowded town due to the overpopulation. I certainly don’t want the lovely countryside of Warwickshire being destroyed by mass housing developments.

No

Representation ID: 94057

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Horton

While your website contains many comprehensive details, i would suggest it is too technical and too complex for an average resident to follow

No

Representation ID: 94201

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Andrew Close

A Policies Map (existing land uses and proposed sites/policies) should have been made available in pdf and print format for residents to see how the local plan 'preferred options' interact. The lack of inclusion of the HS2 line on many of the maps used in the local plan and the SA documentation is also worrying.

No

Representation ID: 94242

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Nikki Carpenter

Took much farming land has been taken for residential housing and once this is gone it is gone forever !!

Other

Representation ID: 94269

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Rachel Cross

The growth in Leamington over the last decade has probably doubled the size of the town. To build many more houses and the necessary infrastructure would surely completely lose its identity.

Yes

Representation ID: 94288

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Babs Gisborne-Land

Thank you for allowing us to reply

No

Representation ID: 94410

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Liz George

Do not support the plans. The local infrastructure can't support the amount of cars at present anyway, the roads are already in a terrible state with ruined edges and potholes everywhere. The local wildlife and countryside will be destroyed and turning rural communities into towns isn't acceptable. Has any thought been given to doctors, schools etc? There already isn't enough provision for the local community.

No

Representation ID: 94413

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: mr alan markham

The process for making comments on the proposals is positively Byzantine in its construction and could not have been better designed to limit severely the option to have any input, especially for those with access and technical difficulties and without access to information and the necessary equipment to be able to partake in what is, after all, intended to be an inclusive and democratic process but also for those more fortunate. The map is far from interactive. Had it been so, it would have been possible to click through to relevant sections upon which comment could be made.

No

Representation ID: 94492

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr John Anderson

Compromising the Special Landscape status of the country park
Will fundamentally change/destroy the character of the two existing communities
Loss of green space and agricultural land
Detrimental impact on environment and wildlife
Increased polution including noise and light pollution
Inadequate transport networks and capacity and potential to improve them.
Inadequate provision of primary and secondary health care and schools.
Clay pan area prone to flooding from run off from the hills
Area is already over developed with the (as yet unfinished) development at LighthorneHeath and that needs to be completed and impact assessed before more local development is considered.

Other

Representation ID: 94520

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Stoford Developments Ltd

Our previous representations put forward land south east of junction 3 M42, including submitting this as part of the call for sites. and has reference ID no. 362. The site offers potential to provide strategic employment floorspace that could also complement the potential new settlement locations A1 and A2 within the Local Plan.

Yes

Representation ID: 94521

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon Town Centre Strategic Partnership

Broadly yes. The partnership have answered those questions they consider relate to their purpose. Where there is no answer to a question it indicates that they neither agree or disagree with the question posed and that such questions are best tackled by individual response.

No

Representation ID: 94613

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Renny Wodynska

I totally object to proposal SG19 but also feel new developments will ruin life for all residents in any village which will be affected. People move to rural areas for peace and quiet. Numerous studies demonstrate how quite calm green areas are vital for people's mental health e.g. https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/tips-for-everyday-living/nature-and-mental-health/how-nature-benefits-mental-health/ ; https://www.health.org.uk/evidence-hub/our-surroundings/green-space/relationship-between-access-to-green-space-and-health. This plan totally ignores these critical findings. I believe the majority of local people will agree to limited development but not development at this scale.

No

Representation ID: 94625

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Tesh

none

No

Representation ID: 94666

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Linda Tucker-Lee

Objection due to increase in traffic, which is already at a very high level.

Loss of green belt land.

Yes

Representation ID: 94681

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Kineton Parish Council

no further comment

Yes

Representation ID: 94684

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Bubbenhall Parish Council

We recognise that the approach taken is an effort to simplify this challenging work

No

Representation ID: 94696

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Jackson

It has been both time consuming and difficult to navigate through this consultation and the way in which it has been laid out in order to reply. I question as to why I has been designed in this way? Maybe so that it puts a lot of people off replying.

No

Representation ID: 94857

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ben Davis

It's too complicated to find specific parts of the plan, especially as you now include all potential sites for development as well as your preferred options.

No

Representation ID: 94919

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford-upon-Avon Town Transport Group

The on-line portal does not record which questions have been answered. This makes it unnecessarily difficult to respond, without answering all questions at one visit!

Yes

Representation ID: 95056

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lynette Sutton

There is a lot information to absorb abd the implications of the proposals.
Rather overwhelming

Other

Representation ID: 95298

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Holliday

I support the have your say chapter in principle but this site is so complicated to navigate and a great deal of computer skills required. I understand the complexity of the subject so I think a lot more time should have been allowed for the general public to respond.

Yes

Representation ID: 95348

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Allan Stewart

The procedure is broadly appropriate

No

Representation ID: 95391

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gordon Ashley

Far too complicated to find out how to give feedback

No

Representation ID: 95496

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Karen Clegg

Land southeast of Hampton Magna. REFID: 715
I object to this development as there have been water and sewerage issues at the Hampton Trove site, which suggests that further construction in this area would only worsen these existing problems. It will disrupt purpose-built landscaped areas, including trees and hedges that form part of the green belt. Removing land from the green belt to meet sustainability targets is counterproductive and unsustainable. The proposed site will compromise our privacy by allowing homes to be overlooked, reducing natural light, and introducing unwanted noise and smell.

No

Representation ID: 95497

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Karen Clegg

Land North West of M40 Junction 15. REFID: 44
I object to this development as it will disrupt purpose-built landscaped areas, including trees and hedges that form part of the green belt. Removing land from the green belt to meet sustainability targets is counterproductive and unsustainable. The proposed site will compromise our privacy by allowing homes to be overlooked, reducing natural light, and introducing unwanted noise and odors. The road network is already at capacity and the A46 continues to struggle with the volume of traffic at present.

No

Representation ID: 95815

Received: 08/02/2025

Respondent: Richard Gray

It is not possible to assimilate 690 pages of proposals for the general public. There should be an executive summary.

Yes

Representation ID: 95890

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Tesh

yes

Yes

Representation ID: 95988

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr ian shenton

.

Other

Representation ID: 96011

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr John Clayton

This is an extremely important consideration and I do not feel that enough time has been allocated for residents to comment. The website is very difficult to navigate for most and almost impossible for residents with less computer experience. To my mind more emphasis should have been given to advertising the proposal and assistance provided to those people who do not have computer knowledge which can skew the results of the survey thus not giving a true representation of the general public feelings on this matter.