Other

Representation ID: 90691

Received: 04/02/2025

Respondent: Mr george Turrall

I believe we should pause consultations on future housing developments to assess the current pressures on our healthcare and school services. Warwick Hospital has declared a critical incident due to overwhelming demand and bed shortages, which risks patient safety and lowers living standards. Before approving new housing, we must ensure adequate medical and educational facilities are in place to support the growing population. If these resources are insufficient, development should be postponed. I urge our local MP to advocate for urgent funding from the Health and Education secretaries.

Other

Representation ID: 91128

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Radford Semele Parish Council

Radford Semele Parish Council supports the overall approach to sustainable development:-
In particular: -
- Growth should be allocated to the strategic growth sites, any new settlement sites and
areas below one hectare in size. Other sites put forward by developers should be
removed from consideration. Otherwise, development will be random, inadequately
planned and insufficiently supported by infrastructure
- There should be a balanced approach taken to the protection of the Green Belt and
sufficient weight given to the protection of green spaces and open land elsewhere in
South Warwickshire’

Other

Representation ID: 91482

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Beth Palmer

I believe there is a need for small scale housing development such as infill housing or renovation of unused /derelict properties. I think building on such a huge scale across Warwickshire will ruin the local landscape and rather than be a unique place to visit we will simply be another urban sprawl so the very revenue we raise from such things as tourism will be diminished. Wildlife will suffer - in a time where we are being encouraged to conserve and protect. Villages will lose their sense of community

No

Representation ID: 91744

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Ms miranda maloney

N/A

No

Representation ID: 91853

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Hanno Kirner

Not if they encroach on nature reserves, historic sites and impact the green belt

No

Representation ID: 91902

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Paula Holmes

Non-Greenbelt sites should be the preferred option.

Other

Representation ID: 92231

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Laura Gibb

I’d be more inclined to support proposals if they were more innovative and truly environmentally focused. This could be an opportunity for innovative, sustainable houses with exciting landscaping and sustainable travel links but we are just getting the same boring boxes being built by each developer. There’s no innovation, no desire to future-proof the communities that have to have these developments, no inspirational solutions to infrastructure problems. It’s just the same old, same old each time - characterless and bringing nothing to their communities.

No

Representation ID: 92538

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Bex Thomson

Do not agree with use of productive farmland or greenbelt for housing at all

No

Representation ID: 92578

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Bex Thomson

Do not agree with any development on green beht

No

Representation ID: 93382

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Janet Spalding

I moved here 36 years ago to be in the countryside. Over that time more large estates have been built around Stratford and Leamington and we are just merging into a very large town/city. Traffic congestion is already bad and there is a lack of doctors surgeries and we need another hospital to cope with all the extra houses being built. . our countryside is disappearing but We still need to grow food. I would prefer smaller developments in each village. We are just spoiling what was a lovely place to live. Not any longer.

No

Representation ID: 93570

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Wellesbourne and Walton Parish Council

We do not support for the following reasons. Over development of the area surrounding the parish. A loss of the character and landscape. A lack of infrastructure to support the development we already have. Medical centre, dentists, school all oversubscribed or close to it. A lack of playing fields, lack of leisure facilities particularly a sports hall. A poor system of public transport, with no rail connectivity. Sustainable transport is unobtainable without the infrastructure of cycle lanes, safe footways and improved public transport. Water, sewage, broadband, provision all creaking.

No

Representation ID: 93788

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr William Campbell

Do not agree with the broad plans, but support the aim to sensibly manage overdevelopment.

No

Representation ID: 93916

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carina Taylor

South Warwickshire
Greenbelt land should not be built on.
South Warwickshire does not have the road infrastructure to support the proposals
Poor rail links
Not enough school places
Not enough jobs, the young leave
Area to expensive to live, the Grammar Schools contribute to the high house prices

Yes

Representation ID: 94573

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon Town Centre Strategic Partnership

N/a

No

Representation ID: 94677

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Gala McBride

B1 land at Hatton
Once green land is concreted over, it can't be reclaimed as farmland or green space. All flora and fauna are banished. Instead come carbon dioxide, car fumes, human detritus, noise, artificial light and increased traffic volume. Please find brownfield sites instead and leave the green land we have left around Hatton for our health and enjoyment. The canal is an important tourist attraction. Middle Lock Lane is used by lots of walkers, often with dogs and children, and bike riders, walk pastl our cottage every day, through the trees to the quiet canal banks and beyond.

Other

Representation ID: 94799

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Kineton Parish Council

broadly supportive ONLY IF specific comments offered above are accepted and supported.

How has Kineton been identified as a Priority 1 area for development? Is it because it is a MRC? The rationale for it not appearing under any significant category for housing or business development needs to be clarified, otherwise developers will use the classification as an excuse for imposing unwarranted/unjustified development. In later policy statements the reference to “edge of Priority 1” opportunities further reinforces our concern

Other

Representation ID: 94839

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford-upon-Avon Town Transport Group

It should be noted that in the life of this plan, vehicles will move to zero carbon, therefore eliminating one of the concerns of private car usage. In addition, autonomus vehicles/ vehicle sharing and other potential technology changes will affect developments and trends should be taken into account in density, and sustainability assessments.

No

Representation ID: 95215

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Edward Wilson

It is frankly a horrible thing to contemplate to be in a currently rural area and now be seen as in an M40/A46 opportunity area. I cannot see where this is defined but I expect it means not an opportunity area but an exploitation area where there will be high levels of suburbanisation and solar panels both inside and outside, close by,the area. This will not improve the environment and if the exercise is driven by people who put lines across the heritage of a windmill and a roman fort without mentioning the wildlife destruction I fear for the future.

No

Representation ID: 95527

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Dave Maxted

I don't think development of green belt land can be justified by calling it "sustainable"

Yes

Representation ID: 95582

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jon Redhead

This should always be considered sympathetically, as there have been far too many areas of barren land that have been considered as an eyesore by many, for years.

No

Representation ID: 95672

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs J Waterhouse

N/A

Other

Representation ID: 95835

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Carter

Growth should be allocated to the strategic growth sites, any new settlement sites and areas below one hectare in size. Other sites put forward by developers should be removed from consideration. Otherwise, development will be random, inadequately planned and insufficiently supported by infrastructure
There should be a balanced approach taken to the protection of the Green Belt and sufficient weight given to the protection of green spaces and open land elsewhere in South Warwickshire.

Other

Representation ID: 95912

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Tesh

Please refer to comments provided to q4.1.
In addition, where there are multiple adjacent sites being promoted by different landowners/developers please can the S106/S278 be pooled to ensure meaningful improvements to infrastructure rather than improvements done piecemeal where the improvements do not adequately mitigate the impact of the combined developments.

No

Representation ID: 96052

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Judith Palmer

The scale of development being considered on, as you identify, designated green belt, performing an important purpose to stop urban sprawl enabling critical open spaces which support farming, the environment and nature and define the culture and nature of South Warwickshire is excessive and horrifying. It feels this consultation has blind-sided local areas impacted, who feel completely shocked at the scale of what is presented in the detail released in this consultation, and given just under 2 months to mobilise responses feels excessively pressured, and in our own area, exclusionary with a higher number of non-digital, older residents.

No

Representation ID: 96188

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Simon Lee

Use of green belt when other less rural sites are available. The employment need is not local. Stratford has less commitment and more need. No plans for utilities schools and local amnesties. Village roads cannot support closure traffic.

Other

Representation ID: 96302

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Southam Town Council

We agree with the general approach subject to the comments on individual policies and sites.

No

Representation ID: 96497

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Shipston Town Council

There are several important principles in this chapter. In particular the nomination of Shipston as a Strategic Growth Location is seriously flawed. The fact it is located entirely within an SLA (Dunsmore & Feldon: Area 96) has been omitted. The selection appears to be heavily influenced by Call for Sites output from adjacent parishes served by Shipston. It is demonstrated that Shipston can contribute modestly to housing & industrial development over the Plan Period, without compromising its landscape or setting which are vital factors for the future.
It needs to be withdrawn from the SGL list prior to reg. 19.

Yes

Representation ID: 96654

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: John Dinnie

Lack or degradation of infrastructure to support existing housing development and resultant population growth has to be addressed prior to considering extra growth in any particular area.

No

Representation ID: 96670

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Alan Griffith

Planned steady growth of villages and towns are important for sustanability of the shops, churches, schools etc. They are also the heart of the communities.
Settlements on brownfield sites are acceptable but no at the cost of the countryside. The BW site has a high elevation, visible for miles. It is ribbon development between West Midlands and Straford, something that is a key planning negative. The area is part of the Straford Heritage, OPEN BUSSES with tourists going through this proposed settlement is unaccetable.
It's in the Avon Valley Character Area, ignored in the assesssment. This wildlife corridor is vital.

Yes

Representation ID: 96838

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Alcester Town Council

Alcester Town Council, Arrow with Weethley Parish Council, Kinwarton Parish Council, Wixford Parish Council and Great Alne Parish Council (together referred to as Alcester Parishes Group or ‘APG’) broadly supports this Chapter. However, all development must respect the scale and infrastructure capacity of that particular community. Infill development should be prioritised over greenfield expansion. All growth must align with sustainable transport plans ensuring train, bus and cycle infrastructure improvements.