No

Representation ID: 98362

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Susan Hague

I understand the district must respond to the rise in population but the housing amount of 54,000 is unnecessarily excessive and unreasonable. I do not know why this allocation has not been appealed or challenged.

Other

Representation ID: 98556

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Tibbles

The location and accessibility of some of the sites are many miles from proposed development sites and often limited to working hours. This limits the ability of local residents to attend and understand the proposals, particularly those with limited mobility and those who can't access online services

Yes

Representation ID: 98621

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

This chapter could have benefited from some better infographics, that contain a useful summary of what is being consulted, working with a plain text is not the most impactful way to engage with the user.

No

Representation ID: 98718

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Old Milverton and Blackdown Parish Council

Although carefully structured, it is very long, and to understand it fully it is necessary to read many more documents than just the 187 pages of the consultation paper itself. The number of supporting documents and the level of detail are too onerous for members of the public and other non-specialists (e.g. town and parish councillors) to be able to digest fully. The process therefore appears skewed towards planning professionals who are i) conversant with the terminology/issues and ii) have teams of people and resources to dedicate to it. OMBJPC feels that this should be acknowledged when considering the responses.

No

Representation ID: 98731

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Makestone Strategic Land - Ashow

Agent: Mr Jack Barnes

The Plan needs to demonstrate specific, deliverable sites for five years following the intended date of adoption (anticipated to be 2028-2033). The Plan needs to allocate specific deliverable sites to accord with paragraph 72 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Proposed changes required to ensure soundness: identify and allocate small and medium scale sites as part of the draft plan. One such site is Makestone Strategic Land’s site at Ashow (2024 Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment [HELAA] ref. 193.

Yes

Representation ID: 98785

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Philip Sykes

It needs to be made crystal clear what is the nature of Call for Sites. Whilst is is commendable in terms of openness, every time is causes fear and panic and sensational headlines in the local press. To some extent there is real danger of it causing a self-fulfilling prophesy. Also sites that have been previously been subject to planning permission refusal should NOT be included where factors leading to a refusal remain unchanged.

Yes

Representation ID: 98787

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Douglas Gordon

None

No

Representation ID: 98813

Received: 06/03/2025

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

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

* A single local plan should be produced, rather than a 2-part plan, to provide certainty.
* There is no timescale for Part 2.
* Support for the 25 year time horizon but, given the lengthy timescale for new settlements to come forward.
* It is highly unlikely that any significant contribution will be forthcoming from a new settlement for at least 10 years.
* Our clients’ land could contribute to the Districts’ housing requirements in the short term.

Other

Representation ID: 98872

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline West

(1) Absence of POSTAL notification to all residents
(2) Sheer volume of information
(3) Short duration of consulation for new areas such as F2 and F3
is unfair to a portion of the population, the elderly (or whom more in rural areas) and those who do not use digital communications, the time poor, less determined & less literate general public.

No

Representation ID: 98964

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Tania White

I think Warwickshire seems to be taking more than its fair share of housing allocation. I agree that a degree of new housing needs to take place but transport links need to be sustainable. The quality of housing needs to be addressed too as there are too many housing estates where properties are cheek by jowl. Careful consideration needs to be given to quality of life.

No

Representation ID: 99203

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Chris Kershaw

The proposals
- are out of scale with the local environment and will adversely impact Bearley and surrounding villages
-will exceed the capacity of the local infrastructure ie roads ,sewage ,education, and health .
- sites selected partly due to the ownership structure which makes site assembly easier than other shortlisted sites
-area suffers from excessive flooding and will mean that this will be exacerbated.
The promise of new facilities to support the development will inevitably be diluted (as with other large scale schemes ) as the developers renegotiate their provision as development costs rise and viability suffers

Other

Representation ID: 99233

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Elaine Atter

Infrastructure is the key issue. Please address the current and potential infrastructure problems before agreeing to the building of more properties.

No

Representation ID: 99380

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Diane Wilson

See my previous comments

Yes

Representation ID: 99467

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

NA

No

Representation ID: 99544

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr jasvir paddan

Extra services will need to be provided, extra shops, parks schools roads to be improved in the area

No

Representation ID: 99570

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Hopkins

This is a complete destruction of south Warwickshire, more and more housing with no thought to either the current residents nor the impact upon the natural world.
Infrastructure is creeking at its seams, roads are at times grid locked, rail services have not been considered.

Other

Representation ID: 99611

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Sue Bedford

N/A

No

Representation ID: 99633

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Stone -Johnston

Green Belt analysis:
The green belt review included as technical evidence is flawed. LSP7 and LSP8 make strong contributions to the greenbelt.

No

Representation ID: 99656

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Pamela Phillips

I strongly oppose the building of homes near Wilmcote and Bearley.

No

Representation ID: 99670

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Stone -Johnston

SG05 - Land East of Lillington

Green Belt Analysis

a. Green Belt review included as technical evidence is flawed - LSP7 and LSP8 make strong contributions to the green belt.
b. Sites LSP7 and LSP8 protect the separation between Lillington / Leamington and Cubbington Village - If SG05 is allowed to proceed, Cubbington will lose it village identity and be completely subsumed as a suburb of Leamington.
c. As per the findings of the last local plan inspection, this is one of the key purposes for Green Belt and as such it should be protected.

Yes

Representation ID: 99715

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Rachel Shakespeare

I am writing to object to the proposal of the G1 site. I live in Northend. The GP surgery in Fenny Compton is already extremely busy, the primary school (also in Fenny) is over subscribed. There is no secondary school. There are no major roads. The area is known to flood multiple times a year. Surely there are better more suited sites. There isn't the required infrastructure and this site seems completely inappropriate.

No

Representation ID: 99804

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Delve

x

No

Representation ID: 99836

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Charlotte Coates

I am writing to express my strong objection to the proposed local area housing plan. This development threatens to overwhelm Shipstons infrastructure, significantly increase traffic congestion, and strain public services such as schools and stretched healthcare facilities. Moreover, the plan poses a risk to our local environment, harming our limited green spaces and building on land prone to flooding. The development poses a threat to the unique character and essence of our Shipston will be irrevocably altered. I urge you to reconsider the plan and engage in meaningful dialogue with residents to find a more sustainable and community-friendly solution.

Yes

Representation ID: 99851

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford District Council Green Group

It would be good to be able to submit

No

Representation ID: 99936

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ben Coates

New developments already overwhelm existing infrastructure in the town, especially drainage, that any further development would be unacceptable and had the potential to erode the town “feeling” residents value so highly

No

Representation ID: 99948

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Karen Collins

I object to the release of the Greenbelt adjacent to North Leamington site SG06 and specifically LS02 as it fails to meet the following requirements - Conditions to build on the Green Belt & Sustainable neighborhood criteria.

Yes

Representation ID: 100037

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Liz Smith

All the new building that has so far taken place in Shipston has definitely not taken into consideration Infrastructure. The town cannot support more housing unless improvements are made to the schools, doctors, roads, drainage to name a few. Where will people work?

No

Representation ID: 100279

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Howard Lucas

Whilst I fully understand & accept the need for additional housing, I'm saying no to the development of area SG19, primarily because the overall global infrastructure south of the river to support the size of development proposed doesn't currently exist.

No

Representation ID: 100544

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Joe Rukin

I do not know if this call for sites is something totally new that is not represented on the map, or the stuff that is hidden when people go onto the interactive map. It is unbelievable that you have a map which doesn't include this, or maybe the previous call for sites. The consultation seems to have been deliberately designed to create confusion around the current and previous call to sites. It's almost as it you are deliberately hiding sites in the call for sites from the consultation.

No

Representation ID: 100564

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Amanda Massey

N/A