Yes

Representation ID: 85943

Received: 10/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sidney Syson

Strategic directive 7: I am not clear as to how you hope to do your "Focussing and promoting a high standard of design".
Surely current planning legislation does not help suuport this aim?

No

Representation ID: 86034

Received: 11/01/2025

Respondent: Mr & Mrs D A Godfrey

N/a

Yes

Representation ID: 86042

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Sandy McCaskie

N/A

No

Representation ID: 86163

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Susan Harrison

60% of the people did not agree with the vision BUT you "do not consider that we need to fundamentally change the Vision in response to the comments received"

Therefore you are ignoring the majority of residents/ responders from the outset. This autocratic attitude is goes against the democratic philosophy that exists in our country.

No

Representation ID: 86183

Received: 14/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Freeman

You should have has part of your vision the objective to reduce the level of disruption to existing residents of the area. The recent development at Union View on the Birmingham Road is an example of poor management that resulted in chos to local residents for over 12 months ! I cant imagine how these new proposals are gping to impact long standing residents....I feel like moving back to Coventry rather than go through that pain again. You dont seem to have joined up and corridinated thinking.

Yes

Representation ID: 86232

Received: 17/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Brightburn

Impact of growth options on existing town and settlement centres needs to be identified to inform the selection of the most appropriate location for growth, for it to be a 'Sustainable Settlement' in the round. Issues like can the existing centre cope with increased demand for parking, parks and open space, facilities (schools, health, libraries etc). I see gaps on the maps where the Town Centres are but no information relating to these impacts, and opportunities. Is this being dealt with later? Or now to inform choices?

No

Representation ID: 86247

Received: 17/01/2025

Respondent: Michelle McHugh

There should be a strategic objective relating to regeneration of town centres and repurposing of empty buildings - why are we seeking to develop outside of town centres when town centre economies are dying and there are lots of empty buildings.

Yes

Representation ID: 86256

Received: 17/01/2025

Respondent: Cllr Andrew Day

none

Yes

Representation ID: 86285

Received: 19/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Checkley

Fine

Other

Representation ID: 86301

Received: 20/01/2025

Respondent: Sian Tarbuck

The proposals for proposed development at SG224 do not meet strategic objective 1. There is limited public transport to Warwickshire or Solihull. There are no medical facilities in Hockley Heath and insufficient education options- namely one small primary school. These sites would change the size of the village dramatically and reduce access to green belt. Most people living in these properties would rely on amenities in Solihull and not Warwickshire. This does not encourage green transport as anyone living here would be reliant on having a car leading to increased traffic and pollution

Other

Representation ID: 86313

Received: 21/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Daniel Chandler

Regarding Strategic Objective 3, I understand the need to support the growth in new homes and jobs, however careful attention needs to be made to existing homes. The homes adjacent to potential site C1 is already stretched to breaking point for infrastructure, schooling, utilities, and continued increasing flood risk. Further homes would only further impact this, and would also be in direct contravention of Strategic Objectives 8, 10, and 12.

No

Representation ID: 86320

Received: 21/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Ashcroft

Warwickshire has an important mix of land uses which together define the character and sense of place. It is important in maintaining this that that mix is respected. No enough weight has been given to this balance and particularly the importance of sense of space and criticality of maintaining the greenbelt and high quality agricultural land

Yes

Representation ID: 86335

Received: 21/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Noel Davis

Vital that ALL infrastructure required to support new or expanding communities is in place before development starts. The piecemeal approach used the past isn't working. Infrastructure improvements added as a planning condition to be completed at predefined periods always get delayed. Road improvements supposed to be implemented for LMA development is a prime example. A transport study has failed to arrive at a satisfactory solution.
Having failed to deliver these improvements the preferred options is considering a doubling of the LMA. How can this be considered when the existing planning consent cannot be sustainably supported by the current transport network?

No

Representation ID: 86398

Received: 23/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sheila Chennells

I do not understand where we will benefit as local residents from your proposals. You are taking away our green spaces and countryside. Increasing fumes from cars etc and are not helping the environment. You just go through the motions and do whatever you want like castle farm extension and parking. I do not understand where the jobs will come from locally and there is already a high unemployment rate. Many of your objectives are a joke and have not been thought through clearly. Are you compiling a wish list and you are not realistic with your ideas and suggestions.

Other

Representation ID: 86427

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Matthews

The Plan's vision lacks a strong commitment to ecological sustainability, which is crucial for a resilient future. It should prioritize ambitious climate goals and community-led initiatives. The current objectives do not adequately reflect the urgency of addressing climate change and protecting biodiversity. A comprehensive approach that incorporates Green Party values is essential for achieving a truly sustainable South Warwickshire by 2050.

Other

Representation ID: 86439

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Norman

Again the word 'Sustainable' is used a lot without a clear unambiguous definition.
On one level 'sustainable' means at an affordable cost to current and future generations. AFFORDABILITY is missing and the unavoidable fact of life is that AFFORDABILITY will often conflict with other aspirational, even laudable objectives and strategies.

Other

Representation ID: 86442

Received: 25/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Woods

The vision presented is too broad to be of help when assessing a single site or plan

Other

Representation ID: 86509

Received: 27/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sylvia Ackroyd

The plans should be for employment first. Housing then needs to be near to where people work as building houses where people have to travel great distances defeats a lot of the strategic objectives.

Yes

Representation ID: 86515

Received: 27/01/2025

Respondent: Mr justin kerridge

yes

Yes

Representation ID: 86527

Received: 27/01/2025

Respondent: Mr justin kerridge

yes

Yes

Representation ID: 86528

Received: 27/01/2025

Respondent: Mr justin kerridge

yes

Yes

Representation ID: 86529

Received: 27/01/2025

Respondent: Mr justin kerridge

yes

Yes

Representation ID: 86548

Received: 28/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Bridgewater

The focus on Climate Crisis and sustainability is very welcome.

Unfortunately the comments about 60% of previous respondents not supporting the Vison, but your not going to change anything are complaisant.
At the very least, the response should have been "This shows that we did not explain the Vison and the process for developing it well enough. We will focus on improving this communication"

Yes

Representation ID: 86586

Received: 28/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Darrell Muffitt

A reasonable set of strategic objectives but the challenge will be in the interpretation on implementation.

No

Representation ID: 86610

Received: 28/01/2025

Respondent: Rachel Smith

Building more houses on an area that has already heavily flooded twice this year and we're not even at the end of January is INSANITY.

No

Representation ID: 86629

Received: 28/01/2025

Respondent: Mr. Robert Taylor

Get real, prioritise and get on with it.

No

Representation ID: 86806

Received: 30/01/2025

Respondent: Mr GERALD KELLY

The answer is No

No

Representation ID: 86838

Received: 30/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Fossett

1600 houses on a flood plain in Shipston without the resources (school, sewage, GPs, fire station, police, shops,road access) and ruining nearby villages is a travesty of a planning policy and contravenes 90% of your "objectives". No one supports this locally.

Other

Representation ID: 86882

Received: 31/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Gemma Talbott

I have strong concerns about the lack of sustainable travel infrastructure in Leamington Spa. I live in Cubbington and watch the North Leam school pupils cycle u safely to school on roads and pavements every day. There is a lack of cycle lanes and this will worsen if these plans go ahead. Leamington Spa train station and trains that run on th Chilton line are already overfilled and cannot cope with the housing expansions to the town.

No

Representation ID: 86893

Received: 31/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Arthur Hogan-Fleming

Sections of Stratford-upon-Avon have been derelict for many years. State of the roads is dangerous due to being riddled with potholes but money is wasted on other things. Proper immigration control is required so that if (particularly illegal - but legal too) immigration is properly controlled there should not be a need to concrete over the countryside. Public debt is unsustainable and council tax and rates and other taxes are continually increasing at an unsustainable level - there needs to be a period of debt reduction not spending on further development. More development makes flooding problem we already have worse.