No

Representation ID: 94698

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Jackson

N/A

No

Representation ID: 94715

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Elisabeth Blunt

All of this is just positive words, all up beat but when you come down to reality at each area, it falls at the first fence.

Yes

Representation ID: 94749

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford-upon-Avon Town Transport Group

"Strategic Objective 1: Add text after comma:
Supporting an appropriate level of growth which is proportionate in scale and is located in the most sustainable locations especially with good transport connections, or where they can be provided, and where people are able to access affordable homes, jobs, services, health, education, social and community facilities."

Other

Representation ID: 94805

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr T Finerty

The proposals, vision and strategic objectives need to be applied. This does not seem to have happened in some cases.

No

Representation ID: 94850

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Ainsworth

Regarding proposed site Clopton Quarter I do not support this proposal. This is greenbelt land and offers habitat as a wildlife corridor and is integral tp badgers, protected bats, barn owls, hedgehogs and other wildlife. There would also be an increased risk of flooding as this habitat allows water retention to the water table from rainfall. This area is in flood zones 2 and 3 and has caused drainage and flooding issues at and Clopton House Local Nature Reserve by connecting it to urban sprawl.

No

Representation ID: 94863

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Chris Maltby

The Strategic objectives don't follow through to the proposed allocations. A large number of the allocations would result in disproportionate development in semi rural and rural areas with poor accessibility to public transport. New development needs to be focused on the existing main towns where the infrastructure is already in place to support sustainable growth and accessibility.

Other

Representation ID: 94874

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Robert Clarke

There is a too much reliance on sustainable travel including road transport. There needs to be an increased focus on providing a sustainable and affordable public transport solution to connect the rural areas to key sites for education/healthcare/empoyment etc. before further residential sites are planned for development.

No

Representation ID: 94875

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ben Davis

The strategic objectives include sustainable levels of development but it cannot be sustainable to take so much land out of green belt. Green belt land should only be used in exceptional circumstances. If this much green belt is lost every time a local plan is produced then in 100 years time there won't be any left.

Yes

Representation ID: 94947

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Anthony Cocker

I agree with the Vision and Strategic objectives 1-8 & 10-12 above. I disagree with objective 9 and recommend it is reformulated as: "Enriching the quality of the visitor experience through the wealth of cultural, heritage and countryside assets that the area has to offer, and ensuring that tourism has a positive impact on the community's quality of life and sustainable growth".

I believe that, at present, too much of the tourism contributes very little to the local economy and damages the local quality of life. The photo below illustrates a negative impact of seeking to attract tourism (12/10/2024)

Yes

Representation ID: 95045

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Ruth Dixon

With regards building the focus should be on redeveloping existing empty buildings and not tearing up more fields - there is a finite resource and enough has already been destroyed in Warwickshire /Leamington spa, especially with HS2. All new homes should be fitted with at least solar panels and designed to be eco-homes, this should be mandatory.

Yes

Representation ID: 95058

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lynette Sutton

.

Yes

Representation ID: 95095

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Alex Soans

.

No

Representation ID: 95096

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anna Finerty

The vision and objects need to be applied to all sights equally and they have not been

No

Representation ID: 95263

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Alamo

Agent: Harris Lamb

Alamo are concerned the objectives will not be met. Specifically we are concerned about the intention to produce a two part plan which will delay allocations coming forward in sustainable settlements such as Salford Priors.

Other

Representation ID: 95475

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Allan Stewart

South Warwickshire (Stratford and Warwick) is a gem of cultural and historic significance to our Nation. Consequently I wholeheartedly agree with Objectives 8,9 and 12). However, whilst the other objectives are, on paper, laudable. I Do not believe that the current levels of local authority funding, planning procedures and developer capacity are able to meet those remaing objectives and the result will fall short of the objectives.

No

Representation ID: 95623

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: David Wilson Homes

Agent: Harris Lamb

We do not agree that a part 1 plan in isolation will meet the Districts' growth needs and that smaller allocation in the part 2 plan will be required to supplement the part 1 allocations. the most sustainable locations for development are those that are served by train stations such as Bearley and Wilmcote.

Other

Representation ID: 95625

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Sue Cole

The vision should nake clear that the iverarching principles and strategic objectives are equally ranked and not set out in hierachical order.

Strategic objective 3 should encourage development of new sustainable transport by working with others eg national rail. In terms of infrastructure the objective should be make clear that any new development should make provision of infrastructure and its integration with the surrounding area at the start of the development rather than the end so that the quality of life of residents in the surrounding areas is notdiminished. New developments should be looked at on a cumulative impact basis.

No

Representation ID: 95684

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs J Waterhouse

N/A

Other

Representation ID: 95706

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Emma Kirk

The vision is very idealistic and full of contradictions. Unless eco homes are proposed, building thousands of more houses is not conducive to net zero; building and development does not create spaces which reflect the beauty of the area (thinking in particular of the green belt green spaces proposed for development) and development of land removes habitats and restricts biodiversity. Whilst there may be good intentions with this development plan I am very sceptical that the objectives are realistic or achievable. I am particularly sceptical that the vision will be shared by the developers/building firms.

No

Representation ID: 95709

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Bloor Homes Western

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: 95763

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

Broadly I support the Strategic Objectives

Yes

Representation ID: 95876

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Nixon

All new houses should have their own solar power and heat pumps to encourage sustainability. Solar panels should be incorporated onto existing buildings not using green belt land and open fields. Plan should go to 2042 as many things will change over such a long period including the merging of the councils. Development should be restricted to areas that serve the community needs not the developers interests.

Yes

Representation ID: 95891

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Tesh

Agree with the stated Strategic Objectives 1 to 12

Yes

Representation ID: 95906

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Marshall

South Warwickshire should not accept any responsibility for the housing needs for adjoing authorities particularly those which are established major connerbations with redundant industrial sites and outdated public housing.
Residents of South Warwickshire and businesses pay their Council Tax for the benefit of all residents not those from other areas. This is the role of Central Government but more particularly their own local authority.

Yes

Representation ID: 95987

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Marshall

I agree with the proposals provided that at a later date financial and political pressures do not dilute the excellent stated objectives.

No

Representation ID: 96018

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr John Clayton

My question is where are all the people living now who require all these properties now and in the future. The birth rate in the UK is less than the death rate so why do we need so many houses? How is building this level of housing helping with going Carbon Neutral.

Other

Representation ID: 96083

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Janine Lee

The objectives are idealistic, proposing to build 6,700 new homes when SDC has already superseded it's house building target negates the Vision and Strategic objectives. 6,700 homes will create untold damage to natural habitats and bio diversity targets. Wilmcote will become an urban sprawl - a beautiful environment will not be achieved. Traffic, on the Birmingham Road will increase, 6,700 homes equals 13,400 cars trying to access town, thus pollution will negate Net Zero targets. Bus and rail services will not be able to cope, Stratford Upon Avon will not be a 'healthy and beautiful environment to live in.

No

Representation ID: 96086

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Janine Lee

I support the vision but that's all it is in reality your will not meet the vision by building a new settlement.

No

Representation ID: 96196

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Tracey Mumford

Where are farmers to grow food for uk residents? We talk about sustainability, but much of our food is imported. Soon there will be no green belt, no farmers and no uk grown food.

No

Representation ID: 96251

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andy Thomas

New towns should be just that, not encroaching and enveloping current villages, many of which appeared in the Domesday Book, and upsetting their infrastructure,. Current infrastructure is not developed enough for huge expansions for water, sewage etc
This happens when local communities are overrun with new development using existing country lanes, which have been in existence for centuries and cannot cope with modern traffic. Brand new developments would have roads and infrastructure built and suitable for current needs