No

Representation ID: 93085

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Matt Sansom

Alot of the planned areas are in green belts. I can see that this is no concern to building over these areas if there is money to be made even if there is objection in the local area. This greatly adds to air pollution in the local area from industry and people travelling to said areas. Some areas that are shown to being assessed for growth are currently fields used as farm land and have livestock on them which more than ever should be preserved.

Other

Representation ID: 93088

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Waters

The proposals are broadly sensible except there appears to be (at least) one major area not mentioned and this is the impact on agriculture and by implication food security. How much land is to be taken permanently out of food production and potentially how many small holdings/farms could become non-viable due the the percentage of land loss?

Other

Representation ID: 93161

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Raymond Joyce

Strategic Objective 12 should be linked to identifying green belt land where it can be utilised for the provision of off-site BNG.

Strategic Objectives 8 & 9. The cultural and heritage assets in SW Warwickshire are exceptional and should be identified as such and recognised as essential to the 'beauty' of Warwickshire and should be given considerable weighting in planning future development, including avoiding any visual influence where there is currently none from housing or other built environment.

Strategic Objective 3 the need for 'timing' of new infrastructure should a paramount consideration in assessing any future housing development.

Other

Representation ID: 93273

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Phoebe Withnall

SO1: Very few places in Warwickshire have good transport links. Public transport outside the main hubs (Leamington, Nuneaton, Stratford, Warwick) is impractical, making it unclear how sustainable growth can be achieved. The proposed sites suggest this isn't being treated as a serious objective. Many locations lack the transport connections.

SO2: I support the recognition of the needs of traveller communities.

The response to concerns about prioritising unmet need from other authorities relies on the Duty to Cooperate without explaining how decisions will be made or whether local communities will have influence over how much additional housing Warwickshire takes on.

Yes

Representation ID: 93410

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Bernard Davis

The plan needs to recognise the limitations of sustainable development within a largely rural area. The plan should not blindly accept imposed housing targets without questioning the need for the number and locations proposed. There are many existing urban areas in England which could take greater development, especially utilising denser (eg high rise) types of housing.

No

Representation ID: 93499

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jane Markham

The so-called Strategic Objectives, which are largely inconsistent one with the other provide a supposed justification for the authorisation of further building in an area already overcrowded and overburdened in the face of inadequate infrastructure of all types but principally the basic ones of roads/highways/transport, health provision, water supplies and education. As an illustration of this, please see SO6, SO7, SO8 and SO12 v SO3, SO4. It is common knowledge that Warwick DC is required to build 1100 or so new homes per year, not to mention employment-creation sites, which cannot be compatible

No

Representation ID: 93516

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline Sims

A town that has doubled in size in ten years, and according to this plan will double again in the next ten is not sustainable. Stratford council do not put their residents first. The roads are now crammed. The noise from traffic is unbearable. I, and other volunteers, are picking up litter at an unbelievable rate. The town no longer works for its people - it works for the developers, to line their pockets. The town is filthy, full of poorly behaved teenagers, graffiti everywhere going unchecked and full of drugs. Get a grip!

Other

Representation ID: 93568

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Yvonne Joyce

Strategic Objective 12
This should include protecting the Green Belt for access to the countryside and promoting the area for biodiversity net gain.

Yes

Representation ID: 93571

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Laraine Back

Although I have answered "yes" to the question, there is no clarity by yourselves on how this is all going to be carried out.
The amount of housing suggested in Bearley & Henley is way too high regarding infrastructure.

No

Representation ID: 93800

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Ann Collins

I do not support the volume of housing being considered for rural areas but understand the reasons. There is no mention of protecting wildlife habitats or providing swift boxes in new housing, which I consider fundamental to our environment.

Other

Representation ID: 93955

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Beverley Comley

Most people I know commute to work as there are no suitable jobs in the locality and with long public transport commutes - most people rely on the car. Priority should be to develop small and medium businesses in the locality which are on existing fast public transport networks. Housing should be spread proportionally across all towns and villages

Yes

Representation ID: 93971

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Honington Parish Meeting

Honington Parish Meeting broadly supports the Vision and Strategic objectives as outlined in the chapter and throughout the document. However please refer to our concerns and objections regarding the inclusion of SG 17 which we believe in no way meets the objectives criteria as set out.

No

Representation ID: 94002

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr William Senior

This list of objectives puts growth and development above all else, literally. For example, the fact that 'Protecting and enhancing our environmental assets' is as low as number 12 in the list when we are in the midst of an undeniable and scientifically proven global climate crisis, is deeply concerning and highly counterintuitive. In addition, this point states 'protecting what already exists' and yet many of the sites (including those now of a 'preferred' status') are Greenbelt countryside. This vision is not at all balanced.

Other

Representation ID: 94017

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Stuart Mace

Locations at the fringes of South Warwickshire need to work with the neighbouring authorities for what is intended within their plans, there is a real risk of creating sprawl and over-supply of housing in locations that are located far away from jobs, leisure, and education.

No

Representation ID: 94203

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Andrew Close

You have not considered all key issues referenced in bullet points under 3.1 including: 'Definitions of "strategic growth" and "Warwickshire's sustainable development needs" should be provided.' The fact that 60% of respondents at the I&O stage did not agree with the Vision, and you have dismissed this and not revisited/altered the Vision is worrying. The Vision fails to reflect SW and its unique characteristics; it is not spatial; it does not refer to any of towns/key features/development priorities. Unfortunately, it is meaningless. The objectives will not be achieved; is there a baseline; did the last plan meet its aims?

Other

Representation ID: 94270

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: James Springate

The desire to protect our environmental assets is objective No.12.
This means that once you have achieved all the other objectives you will then realise you have destroyed so much countryside we will have lost our environmental assets. The vast areas assigned for housing is very destructive, and will significantly reduce the quality of life in Warwickshire.

Other

Representation ID: 94295

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Sanderson

There are too many objectives. As an example SO6 and SO12 speak to different overarching principles and yet the biggest carbon capture opportunity is provided by tree planting.

Other

Representation ID: 94324

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: phillip claydon

Though I broadly support the content of the proposals, I do not believe they will be achievable. House builders are well known for not providing what was promised. Proposals need backing by upfront investment and enforcement.

No

Representation ID: 94420

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: mr alan markham

The so-called "Vision and Strategic Objectives" contains a large number of mutually self-contradictory proposals. Frankly, they are wholly meaningless without specifics and they ride roughshod through anything to do with environment/wildlife and conservation. The main objectives should be to render the existing area and its appurtenances liveable by improving the provision of services, rather than dressing up as something else a naked submission to the bureaucrats of Whitehall who are capable of conceiving no better solution than by further burdening an already overcrowded area with more and more people who sill inevitably increase the strain of an already unpleasant area

Yes

Representation ID: 94522

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon Town Centre Strategic Partnership

Yes, but given the open ended and aspirational principles it will be of limited value. It will need to be reviewed during the period of the plan

Yes

Representation ID: 94574

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jill Smith

No comment, broadly agree

Other

Representation ID: 94580

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd

Agent: Turley

Yes, Rainier broadly agree with the Vision but consider that Strategic Objective 4 could be strengthened by making reference to the locational strengths of parts of the District, such as the M40 corridor, and the role such areas could play in delivering sustainable economic growth through the provision of industrial and logistics uses.

Yes

Representation ID: 94583

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jill Smith

N/A

Other

Representation ID: 94610

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Judith Cheney

I would suggest that some of Shipston’s needs should be addressed before major development takes place - medical facilities, schools, roads - especially river crossings which will be totally inadequate if development takes place near Fell Mill. The local lanes leading towards Tysoe and onwards will become dangerous “rat-runs” as they are too narrow to accommodate traffic for work elsewhere. Tractors, agricultural lorries and livestock have nowhere else to go.
I was under the impression that building houses on flood plains was no longer appropriate.

Yes

Representation ID: 94621

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jill Smith

N/N

Other

Representation ID: 94629

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Wythall Parish Council

A secondary school to support the educational needs of the new residents in new settlement sites A1 and A2 will be a major requirement; Worcestershire is known to have a lack of secondary school places and it can only be assumed that South Warwickshire is in a similar position. The apparent lack of proposals for a new local secondary school (or extended existing secondary school) within the catchment area of these new settlements will mean that school traffic will exacerbate congestion in surrounding areas, as new residents will need to commute out of area to reach an alternative secondary school.

No

Representation ID: 94638

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Stoford Developments Ltd

Strategic Objective 4 should be expended to reflect the direction of policy as per para 86 of the NPPF. The NPPF is clear that particular regard should be had to facilitating development to meet the needs of a modern economy. The objective should comment on the objectives of the Plan to facilitate this, and refer to Plan identifying suitable locations for uses such as laboratories, gigafactories, data centres, digital infrastructure, freight and logistics.

No

Representation ID: 94644

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Lyttle

The road infrastructure in and around Warwick is already at maximum capacity at peak times, the A46 Warwick bye pass is regularly(several times a week) congested going south to the M40 junction 15 in the morning peak time and equally travelling north from the M40 junction onto the bye pass in the evening. In the event of a breakdown or collision the adjoining roads are blocked for hours at a time. Further development on major and adjoining routes to these bye pass, roads into Warwick and onto the M40 will result in severe congestion and pollution.

Other

Representation ID: 94689

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Kineton Parish Council

the SoA Council’s vision as written is not a vision. It is a statement of the “here and now”
Objective 1 – requires greater clarity on the meaning of “sustainable locations”
Objective 3 – requires greater emphasis on the necessary infrastructure being in place before completion of the development and preferably before it commences
Objective 5 – supporting “the most efficient use of land” could be interpreted as 100 dwellings/hectare.
Perhaps the solution here is to use footnotes/links to where in the Plan these considerations (eg density) are more tightly defined

Yes

Representation ID: 94695

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Bubbenhall Parish Council

The Vision and Strategic Objectives all establish a good set of standards to work to.