Other

Representation ID: 103017

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough - Wellesbourne Road, Wellesbourne

Agent: Turley

The policy should be updated to remove any reference to the HEDNA and instead solely focus on the 2024 standard method as a starting point. Additional adjustments to be made in relation to economic growth and affordability

Other

Representation ID: 103021

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough - Plough Lane, Bishop's Itchington

Agent: Turley

The policy should be updated to remove any reference to the HEDNA and instead solely focus on the 2024 standard method as a starting point. Additional adjustments to be made in relation to economic growth and affordability.

No

Representation ID: 103193

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Summers Family

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

The primary purpose should be to meet the growth requirements expected of South Warwickshire in a sustainable way.

The plan appears to be fixated on strategic scale developments. These are important but a more balanced approach is necessary. There is also a strong ‘urban-focussed’ agenda but given the prevailing character of the districts, smaller scale developments, possibly linked together, could play an important role in this type of growth without the need for strategic improvements to infrastructure. This is the case with the potential allocation of Site 518 at Elmhurst Farm for leisure and community uses.

Other

Representation ID: 103197

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Neal Appleton

Broadly agree. However, there is no substantial transport network in this part of South Warwickshire. The A46 has insufficient capacity at peak times even now. Further development will simply exacerbate the problem. As the transport network is the responsibility of national and county authorities, local district authorities have little influence and plans should accommodate this - transport network improvements may not be delivered.

No

Representation ID: 103289

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Launa Herne

Utilising available urban brownfield land is lacking consideration
Where greenfield development is needed using locations which are within reach of existing facilities, or providing new facilities on site; This in not the case for B1
building at densities that make efficient use of land.
"Sustainable Travel and Economy".
Sustainable travel – rail stations and bus stops with good travel times to major towns;
Enterprise hubs – places where people can earn and spend money, including town centres, Warwick has poor road connections and limited parking would need significant investment
Socio-economic factors - not applicable to B1

No

Representation ID: 103341

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Jack Casey

It is government policy that the Plan must plan for the plan period, and so the strategy cannot be based on an evidence base that does not cover the plan period. Particularly in the context of land being taken out of the green belt, flexibility means ensuring that there is no prospect that further green belt land might be required in the future. This would also conflict with paragraph 149 of the NPPF which states that, when defining green belt boundaries, LPAs must be able to demonstrate that they will not need altering at the end of the plan period.

No

Representation ID: 103461

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Joe Rukin

Given that the Government target for housing in South Warwickshire changed the very day of the Joint Cabinet meeting, it seems both irresponsible and arrogant to insist on sticking with a plan which runs up to 2050. Running the plan to 2042 would take over 10,000 homes out of the to be found number. Given that the target about doubled on December 12th, it is reasonable to assume that the target would change again before 2050, or indeed 2042. The longer plan length gives more power to developers to cherry-pick sites, and given both councils are due for abolition, they should not be making such long plans.

Other

Representation ID: 103629

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Phil Kohler

The approach has many excellent features, but there are still a large number of sites being proposed that extend existing residential areas. Not enough is being taken into account of the impact that additional traffic will have on existing neighbourhoods, which all have their own traffic blackspots.
It is extremely disappointing that no traffic modelling has been done yet that would show the capacity of some of the key pinch points within our towns. For example, Leamington has 4 bridges over the River Leam, 5 railway bridges and 5 canal bridges. These been that key north / south routes have a limited capacity, which is already exceeded on a regular basis. All future development must take these key constraints into account or come up with compelling mitigations.

Other

Representation ID: 103689

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford-on-Avon Town Council

The most important enabling factor is provision of adequate transport infrastructure, i.e. roads and train services. Plans for these should accompany selection of sites, and they should be constructed in advance of any new houses. Specifically, the train lines from Stratford to Birmingham and Leamington Spa need to upgraded, and a southern bypass road needs to be built around Stratford, with two new river crossings (bridges and causeways) to both the east and west of the town.

No

Representation ID: 103809

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural England - Warwickshire

The Policy Direction is not supported.
The scale of proposed development is much greater than is required
It is not required for natural change in the population and is almost wholly going to be occupied by people moving into the area
New housing around South Warwickshire’s towns will harm their setting and generate harmful traffic
The numbers are not likely to be delivered in practice
Green Belt should not be undermined by development
New settlements in various rural locations would urbanise the countryside
Existing 'new settlements’ (Long Marston Airfield, Gaydon-Lighthorne Heath, Kingshill) should be completed before any more are considered.

No

Representation ID: 103881

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Michelle Blackburn

destroying the land, nature, added pollution an increasing the flood risks.

No

Representation ID: 103966

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Camille Newton

The housing allocation that have been selected include Green Belt areas. There hasn't been enough consideration given to the importance of the Green Belt designation and the role it serves to protect wildlife and habitats. Very little consideration seems to have been given to the ecological value of the sites and factors such as current ecological land value, wildlife connectivity and the presence of sites such as Local Wildlife Sites does not appear to have factored into the choice of sites put forward. The Local Wildlife Site data is not up to date and should addressed.

Yes

Representation ID: 104244

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Amanda Waters

none

Other

Representation ID: 104245

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: South Warwickshire Foundation trust

The proposed increase in housing in both Warwick and Stratford Districts will place a significant burden on already pressured healthcare services. This is a serious concern to SWFT and if not fully mitigated will put existing services at risk.

We therefore strongly support statements in the plan requiring full mitigation of significant negative impacts on healthcare services from new proposed developments, as well as the high priority given to healthy, sustainable communities.

However, the urban development of green belt land is not something SWFT would support as a priority for development, as this comes at the expense of long-term sustainability.

Yes

Representation ID: 104584

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Dunning

You aren't going far enough. DO NOT BUILD CAR DEPENDENT SUBURBIA. You are killing people by creating this.

Other

Representation ID: 104598

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Dunning

Stop building sprawling car-dependent suburbia. You are killing people with these decisions. Cars kill people, stop making people have to get in their cars to get to places. Build high density walkable neighbourhoods with active travel infrastructure.

Other

Representation ID: 104638

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Johnson

Using 'locations within reach of existing facilities, or providing new facilities on site;' should not be represented as an option between the two. New developments of this scale should provide new facilities on site. Using existing nearby facilities will put too much strain on already overloaded facilities.

Yes

Representation ID: 104643

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Dunning

Stop building sprawling car-dependent suburbia. You are killing people with these decisions. Cars kill people, stop making people have to get in their cars to get to places. Build high density walkable neighbourhoods with active travel infrastructure.

Paint is not cycling infrastructure.
Buses are bad public transport.
Don't build any detached houses.

No

Representation ID: 104653

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kay Williams

A lot of these are on green belt land. The whole point of the green belt is to not build on it and to protect this land for future generations to protect easy access to nature and prevent urban sprawl. You say a lot about environmental concerns in this plan but if you are really serious about it then you will not build on green belt land. We will never get that land back if you do this.

No

Representation ID: 104699

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Susan Hood

Extremely concerned by the scale of the proposed housing, which seems grossly exaggerated. The Plan reports a need for 1,679 dwellings per annum, but suggests allocating 600 surplus houses (perhaps this relates to including Greater Birmingham provision). This will have a significant negative impact on the region, nature and protected species. Local Plan must not disregard the Environment Act 2021 target of 30% of land allocated to nature and in recovery by 2030.

Land supply in the region is already over the minimum rolling housing land supply. Houses not needed today or in the next five+ years.

No

Representation ID: 104707

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Joe Rukin

You are doing as much as you possibly can to ignore the part of NPPF concerning the Green Belt, whilst simultaneously ignoring the recent degrading of the Green Belt around Kenilworth.

You may find this section of the NPPF useful in this area: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/13-protecting-green-belt-land

Yes

Representation ID: 104731

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr John McStay

A Sustainable approach is the only way to achieve a positive outcome for the environment and the planet

Yes

Representation ID: 104952

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Charlotte Holme

Ideologically this is a sensible plan but the way it is being proposed to be delivered seems flawed. Just sticking houses wherever someone has a bit a land to sell will not deliver this objective. To be truly radical, have a sustainable growth plan, fully connected with employment opportunties, services for the community, interconnectivity with wider transport links, would development of a couple of new small towns not be a more sensible solution. Design from the ground up. Trying to shoehorn into existing towns by bolting on round the edge isn't the best solution.

Other

Representation ID: 105091

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: St Philips

Agent: Lichfields (Birmingham)

St Philips recognise the SWLP's need to address the housing requirements set out in the revised Standard Method, which indicates an increase of approximately 12,725 dwellings compared to the HEDNA. Local Plans must meet at least 80% of the local housing need by March 2025. St Philips believe the SWAs should aim for about 54,700 dwellings from 2025 to 2050, ensuring flexibility in land supply to adapt to changes. A buffer of 10-20% above the housing requirement is essential to accommodate potential delivery issues and unmet needs from neighbouring authorities.

No

Representation ID: 105135

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Rona Taylor

The numbers are too high

No

Representation ID: 105151

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Lawson Bethel

I object to the quantity of houses in your plan ,please consider all the extra vehicles , possibly 10,000 flooding the lane’s throughout the villages close to your planned sites ,Bearley,Norton Lyndsey,Claverdon,Snitterfield,Langley etc, surely to avoid this problem.

I believe your plan should stop at the A34 Birmingham road and not cross to the Bearley side of the A34.please consider this option.

Other

Representation ID: 105197

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Paul Ellwood

I support housing development on suitable brownfield sites and extensions to existing urban areas with infrastructure. I support Strategic Growth areas and Potential New Settlements outside the green belt, as long as infrastructure commitments are in place. However, I oppose any green belt development, including five of the proposed new settlements, due to environmental concerns, lack of sustainability, and inadequate infrastructure. Specifically, the C1 area would harm wildlife, violate conservation principles, and negatively impact local residents, with significant issues in transport, education, healthcare, emergency services, local amenities, and utilities.

Yes

Representation ID: 105217

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

Evidence identifies housing need in SoA and Warwick using 2024 NPPF Standard Method as 54,700 less existing commitments of 17,068 and windfall of 9375 per annum = 28,257 over 25 years – AGREE

No

Representation ID: 105312

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Warwickshire Wildlife Trust

Warwickshire Wildlife Trust is concerned by the scale of the proposed housing. The Plan reports a need for 1,679 dwellings per annum, but suggests allocating 600 surplus houses to allow sufficient flexibility. This will have a significant negative impact on the important habitats and protected species across the area. Houses must be delivered in suitable numbers but in suitable locations and must not disregard the Environment Act 2021 target of 30% of land allocated to nature and in recovery by 2030.

Many housing sites are in Green Belt, an important designation which protects the edges of wildlife sites and provides a transitional and safe area for protected and declining species. WWT is not satisfied that the Councils have carried out a detailed Green Belt Review, particularly Stage 2 work and landscape impact assessments. They have not done individual Flood Assessment work (SFRA part 2s) in order to properly select sites.

Other

Representation ID: 105347

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Roy Ilott

I have considered the housing development plan for Stratford on Avon and Warwick Council areas. There is a significant need for new homes due to demographic changes, particularly as elderly residents are not vacating properties. Building houses alone won't solve the problem; suitable infrastructure is also essential. My experience highlights that the provision of services like sewage and utilities is beyond local authority control and requires government involvement. I believe that the plan must ensure infrastructure is in place before housing completion and should be included in an enforceable development agreement.