Other

Representation ID: 100569

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural England - Warwickshire

The 'Call for sites' is unnecessary and undesirable. The planning authorities have the knowledge to identify sites and locations for development which meet the draft Plan's objectives and should present them at consultation stage. The 'call for sites' results in landowners and holders of options having undue influence on the proposals. Thge presentation of these submitted sites then creates blight on areas, and concern and potentially distress for local residents where such sites are published.
The call for sites for commercial renewable energy (solar farms. wind farms and BESS battery complexes) is particularly damaging. This should be cancelled.

Other

Representation ID: 100584

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs june Goldsmith

I WAS UNAWEAR OF THE CONSULTATION UNTIL 5 DAYS AGO AND MOST OF MY FRIENDS WHERE ALSO UNAWARW OF IT I FEEL RATEPAYERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PERSONSALY INFORMED OF SUCH AN IMPORTANT CONSULTATION INVOLVING THE GREEN BELT

No

Representation ID: 100616

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Lee Clarke

Number and location of the proposed developments are unacceptable as local and district facilities could not cope, we already have water supply problems, traffic congestion, lack of school places (right up to secondary level and grammar schools), medical facilities are already strained.
Retaining green space should be a key long term objective.
Development of brownfield sites or regeneration of run down town centres into more practical housing solutions would be better options.

No

Representation ID: 100617

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Howard Easton

Madness!
The maps don't show HS2!
The proposals destroy prime agricultural land, which the country needs to feed itself!
The impact in the environment will catastrophic!
The West Midlands and Warwickshire currently have the most congested roads nationally.
The environmental damage will effect all human and wildlife.
Finally, this plan is for 50 years. WDC, WCC won't be here in less than 3 years!!!!
As I say, this is madness.

Protect England's "green and pleasant" land. Don't cover it with concrete.

No

Representation ID: 100635

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Diana Hadley

No, it should not be necessary to build on productive well farmed agricultural land.
Flooding on X1 a real issue as the low ground floods regularly, just from fields.
The land is predominantly permenant grass which is great at sequestration carbon.
Congestion.
Road safety.
Infrastructure not robust enough.
GP surgeries, hospitals & schools already at capacity.
Close proximity to proposed gravel extraction.

No

Representation ID: 100690

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Leanne Matthews

Roads need to be significantly improved before more housing and more traffic. The campden road is already like a motorway, and traffic is a big problem.

No

Representation ID: 100697

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Leanne Matthews

The various studies that have been undertaken have failed to demonstrate how the highway infrastructure can be delivered satisfactorily.

Other

Representation ID: 100742

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford District Council Green Group

In the next round there should be more guidance for parish councillors and general public. The drop in sessions should have more info, structure, and hands on help. District councillors can work with officers on this.

No

Representation ID: 100776

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lucinda Wallis

Comments are regarding Wasperton Lane, Wasperton - specifically land fronting the roadside which is proposed for development: Objections are: This is a conservation site so such development is at odds with conservation, development has already been rejected for 5 houses, housing in that position would significantly impact the rural small hamlet and not be in keeping with other properties. Removing the established hedging would destroy the rural habitats and the view for properties opposite and behind.

Yes

Representation ID: 100789

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Rowington Landowner Consortium

Agent: Knight Frank LLP

No comments.

No

Representation ID: 100813

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Keith Waitt

There is a feeling that the plan process has failed to adequately inform residents of developments at each stage.
Most residents in my neighbourhood knew nothing of the consultation period we are in . One resident stumbled across it by chance in mid-February, even though it has been an open forum since 10th January.
This has left us with the feeling, rightly or wrongly, that the authorities are purposely trying to push this through without letting residents know.

No

Representation ID: 100839

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Angela Whitford

I am very concerned that if a number of houses are built in or around Sambourne there is no provision for an increase in traffic ie new roads; not enough places for the local schools for all the children who could move into the area; not enough doctors, dentists and all the infrastructure that is required. There is already issues with flooding in the area and this could increase if it is not sorted.
There is the impact upon wildlife. At present there are a lot of beautiful wildlife around. if their habitat is destroyed they will not survive.

No

Representation ID: 100902

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Aldridge

The process for feeding back is complex and not easy to navigate for vulnerable users and is therefore not in line with good practice in terms of equality and diversity. The proposals are also unacceptable and not thought through - the land by Hockley Heath (ref 278) for example - if this were to go ahead it would crush the village dure to lack of infrastructure.

Yes

Representation ID: 100920

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Nicola Sawle

recgonise that the amount of information that needs to be highlighted to residents is significant but the comment process is somewhat long winded and may be daunting to many

Other

Representation ID: 100964

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Adrian Summers on behalf of the Summers Family

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

The process envisages a Part 1 and Part 2 plan. Even if the decision to sift out the site at Claybank Farm is reversed it would still mean that our client might not find out whether their sites would form part of the plan for many years beyond the current 2027 adoption date proposed. This sort of delay is unjustifiable in the urgent context for growth not just of the local but also the national economy.

The distinction between Parts 1 and 2 of the local plan is unclear. What is the timescale for Part 2 likely to be?

No

Representation ID: 100974

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Phoebe Bosco

Why must we dig up and concrete the very few green spaces we have left to accommodate more housing that people cannot afford? Hockley Heath has not got sufficient amenities for the current people living there, how can we accomodate more without putting additional strain on the infrastructure. There are properties and brownfield sites standing empty in the wider area with the necessary amenities around that would be more suitable. From an environmental standpoint, leave the green alone as its the best chance we have of combatting the ever rising CO2 emissions that more people would produce.

No

Representation ID: 101087

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Culley

you never do any consultations the ones you do are a sham and its a foregone conclusion.

Other

Representation ID: 101099

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Chris Clews

At best there will be some overlap/duplication between chapters - better than omissions.

Other

Representation ID: 101138

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Bart Slob

The process is extremely complex, making it difficult for residents to engage effectively. The short timeframe (10 January – 7 March 2025) limits meaningful participation, especially given the scale of the proposals. More active outreach, such as public meetings and clearer summaries, is needed. Additionally, greater transparency on how feedback will influence decisions is essential. The Call for Sites process should allow alternative proposals, particularly to prevent unnecessary Green Belt loss. Without improvements in accessibility, engagement, and clarity, I cannot fully support the approach outlined.

No

Representation ID: 101244

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Cornelia Beyers

I do not agree that the parcels of land in Sherbourne has any use of development due to poor infrastructure, drainage systems, being adjacent to conservation are and the need to protect certain areas of historical value from overcrowding and encroachment.

No

Representation ID: 101258

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Clegg

I object to SG19. There is insufficient infrastructure in place to support the housing and mixed usage proposed. In particular there are insufficient river crossings which already leads to heavy congestion. The medical facilities will not support an increased population. There are not sufficient schools.

No

Representation ID: 101463

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Vincent Rollason

This development is not good for the area.

No

Representation ID: 101475

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Aaron Cahoon

Strongly disagree with the proposed SG17 site in Shipston on Stour. I live on Fell Mill Lane and the site partially floods , thereis no infrastructure to accommodate 1600homes, I don't want to lose the waste recycling centre due to next closest one is wellsbourne miles away. The schools are full, the doctors is full. The bridge is a bottle neck with traffic only able to cross in one direction at a time. The concreting over will dramatically increase the river level which already flood's due to surface water filling up the basin quicker. This would be an environmental disaster.

Yes

Representation ID: 101559

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford-on-Avon Town Council

Stratford Town Council (“STC”) broadly supports the development of the South Warwickshire Local Plan and the associated consultation stages being utilised.

Other

Representation ID: 101674

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Grevayne Properties Limited

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

The process envisages a Part 1 and Part 2 plan. The distinction between Parts 1 and 2 is unclear. Our clients might not find out whether their land forms part of the development plan for many years beyond the current 2027 adoption date proposed.

It should also be recognised that it is highly unlikely that any significant contribution will be forthcoming from a new settlement for at least 10 years. Our clients’ land, at Sites 490 and 491, is immediately available and could contribute to the Districts’ housing requirements in the short term.

Other

Representation ID: 101704

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Grevayne Properties Limited

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

The plan states that "Five overarching principles will determine how this development is delivered. These could apply anywhere and imply there is nothing distinctly ‘South Warwickshire’ about them.

The potential for housing delivery on our clients’ land at Baddesley Clinton (site ref: 490) would contribute to Government’s objectives to accelerate housebuilding over the next 5 years. The location of the land within Baddesley Clinton would also ensure development in a sustainable location.

South Warwickshire is characterised by tight urban areas and numerous rural settlements and the policies of the development plan should better reflect that character.

Yes

Representation ID: 102016

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: BDW Trading Limited

Agent: Knight Frank LLP

No comments

No

Representation ID: 102088

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Helen Roberts

The format of the consultation appears designed to discourage people from taking part - it is not designed in an easy to follow way and is therefore potentially discriminatory in who is able to respond

Yes

Representation ID: 102461

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Jonathan Turner

Yes however it could be easier to find

Yes

Representation ID: 102518

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Margaret Halligan

Communication regarding this has been very poor - people in my area were made aware by another local resident making a comment on Facebook. Without that, people would have been unaware of the plans and consultation timeframe on something which would significantly impact them - that approach is not acceptable.