Yes

Representation ID: 98942

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Liberal Democrat Group (Stratford District councillors)

I broadly support the proposals in the Vision and Strategic Objectives.

Yes

Representation ID: 98981

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mac Mic Group

Agent: McLoughlin Planning

We support the identified Strategic Objectives at Section 3.2 of the PO Consultation. In particular, we support the identification of the delivery of homes to meet community needs at Strategic Objective 2. It is abundantly clear that housing delivery is of upmost importance to the Government, with the Deputy Prime Minister pointing to our being “in the middle of the most acute housing crisis in living memory”.

Other

Representation ID: 99000

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs JILL CHAMBERS

More careful consideration of flood impacts where new settlements are built and existing/old water routes are affected. Additionally the impacts of HS2 on roads and the damage HS2 caused to the local environments, trees, hedges, verges and road surfaces

No

Representation ID: 99019

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: J & E Evans Properties Limited

Agent: Marrons

The Vision should recognise that there are unmet development needs outside of South Warwickshire that may need to be met within South Warwickshire. A Strategic Objective should also be to meet any unmet housing needs from communities elsewhere that cannot meet their needs, where it is practical and consistent with achieving sustainable development. This would align the strategic objective with the ‘positively prepared’ test of soundness.

Yes

Representation ID: 99104

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

The strategic objectives are all very fine but my comment the is the plan does not always apply them. For instance:
1. Shipston is not an a sustainable transport corridor and is severely lacking in other infrastructure but the plan still puts forward land enough around the town to double its size.
2. Long Marston is put forward as a new settlement of up to 10000 houses but there is no plan to reinstate the most sustainable form of transport, the rail line from Stratford to Honeybourne.

Yes

Representation ID: 99145

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Fernando Ortelli

Rail and bus networks need significant improvement if net zero is to be achieved

Other

Representation ID: 99161

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Summers Holdings Ltd

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

The vision, principles and strategic objectives require a rethink and it is noted that the vision previously received a low level of support. South Warwickshire is characterised by urban areas and numerous rural settlements and the policies should better reflect that particular character - the principles could apply anywhere and imply there is nothing distinctly ‘South Warwickshire’ about them. A major omission is that the vision does not seem to give sufficient emphasis to economic growth. The over-arching principle should be concerned with supporting infrastructure ‘in the round’ and there should not be undue emphasis on transport as currently stands.

No

Representation ID: 99172

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Val Sassall

The number of development sites proposed to significantly increase the size of South Warwickshire villages will ruin these village communities. People live here because of the current communities and enjoyable natural environment surrounding them.
This plan is very difficult to comment on with so many different individual sites requiring comment.
It is impossible to assess without detailed infrastructure plan to support it. Energy, water, roads, doctors, dentists, hospital and transportation is full already.

Other

Representation ID: 99221

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Garry Rollason

Whilst I agree with the general thrust of the strategic objectives much of the detailed content of the document is not consistent with the objectives. For example how can making provision for 50,000+ houses in a rural area like South Warwickshire be consistent with protecting and enhancing our environmental assets OR improving the quality of life of our communities. There are many other examples I could give.

No

Representation ID: 99237

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land - Wellesbourne

We object to the plan period and nature of the two-part plan.

No

Representation ID: 99243

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land - Wellesbourne

We are concerned objectives may not be realised.

Yes

Representation ID: 99334

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford District Council Green Group

In order of importance:
1st - SO 6
2nd - SO 1,2,3,5,10,12
3rd - SO 4,7,11
4th - SO 8 and 9

No

Representation ID: 99396

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Diane Wilson

Not if this means more growth, when HS2 and already new developments built or in progress are already having a major negative impact on historical heritage, countryside, village boundaries and wildlife habitat.

No

Representation ID: 99438

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carolyn Haynes

The vision is not realistic. The schools are largely oversubscribed, as are the health centres. There is no 24 hour local hospital. The roads that lead to the proposed new settlements are single lane. The main townships of Stratford, Alcester and Bidford cannot support additional traffic into the town centres and are filled with historic buildings so widening is not an option.

Yes

Representation ID: 99449

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Gillian Padgham

These seem to be very reasonable objectives and I agree with them all.

No

Representation ID: 99457

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Cooper

These proposals are nothing more than PR speak and will not transform Warwickshire into a great place to live, work, and relax. Traffic queues are already the norm, yet no new roads are planned and the curse of drivers racing through local villages to avoid traffic is happening now. Net Zero Carbon targets, fine words but there is nothing here to support that. Planners allowing the majority of supermarkets to be located south of Leamington doesn't inspire confidence, nor does the costly provision of barely used cycle lanes.

No

Representation ID: 99459

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Afolabi Okeshola

I disagree with Strategic Objective 7 especially. The focus should be on maintaing rather than creating attractive places. Areas like South Warwickshire are essentially what makes England English and should be maintained as such.

Yes

Representation ID: 99479

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

NA

No

Representation ID: 99498

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Sears

Warwickshire is already too built up

Yes

Representation ID: 99513

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Karen Abbotts

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 99623

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Sue Bedford

.

No

Representation ID: 99631

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Neil Brooker

I strongly disagree to the council needing to provide "active travel" or "Sustainable modes of travel" as the Government already have legislation in place for net zero, so there is no need to spend further money that restricts car use on the ground of sustainability as they will be electric in future and cars are needed in all the rural distinct.

Yes

Representation ID: 99684

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

NA

No

Representation ID: 99716

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Cooper

A well-designed and beautiful South Warwickshire cannot be achieved if rural land is covered by housing and solar farms. Eyesores are not beautiful. While I support the re-use and refurbishment of unused existing buildings, there are buildings occupied for only part of the year by students. This should be discouraged, the accommodation should be for local people thereby easing demand for new housing. Universities and Colleges should provide on-site accommodation, a Net Zero Carbon benefit, removing the need for daily student transport from outlying areas. No doubt the current housing occupied by students would be improved by landlords.

No

Representation ID: 99989

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Helen Allman

It seems that the discussed proposals have been completely ignored with the housing plans. More houses will completely ignore environmental factors such as protecting wildlife, being carbon zero and connecting people. People and wildlife will be isolated, culture destroyed and tourism damaged. This is why space within cities needs to be better utilised first to answer the housing problem

Other

Representation ID: 99998

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Susan Harrison

Some of the points, e.g. funding for healthcare facilities & schools are outside the control and remit of SWPL and depends on outside agencies e.g. ICS and DoE

Yes

Representation ID: 100196

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr peter spreadbury

I broadly support the Strategic Objectives. We need a great transport infrastructure connected with low cost housing, employment opportunities and our countryside protected for nature and residents.

Yes

Representation ID: 100218

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Partridge

While I support many of the objectives there is a direct contradiction between the vision statement "To make Warwick District a great place to live, work and visit by improving lives and our environment" and the reality. Building in any of the strategic growth areas and particularly any of the new settlement areas would have a hugely detrimental impact on the environment - with the increased levels of traffic congestion, noise, pollution, destruction of green spaces all having a negative effect on quality of life in this area. Development on this scale would benefit neither existing nor new residents.

No

Representation ID: 100223

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr colin roberts

The objectives and visions may sound laudable but they still lack clarity and are contradictory in their aims. How the objectives are going to be met 'efficiently' and 'sustainably' is not clearly defined, measurable or credible eg increasing housing but retaining beauty; increasing transport and job opportunities (more lorry distribution parks?) whilst meeting net zero carbon targets; preventing crime but cutting police forces etc. Residents need to know in more detail the reality of how these visions will be practically achieved over the planned time period given the likelihood of political changes.

No

Representation ID: 100521

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Draper

The strategy does not recognise the negative impact the community will endure during the construction of C1 settlement.
There is no mention of impact to the character of the area surrounding the C1 site. The strategy uses terms that are based on national development objectives ( ie 20 minute neighbourhood ) which are not possible for the C1 settlement. Sprawling across the countryside into an area with limited infrastructure and a current car use necessity which will not change just because of C1.