No

Representation ID: 96813

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Amanda Taaffe

Lepus ‘High Level’ Report derived from desktop investigations!
St Mary’s Primary School is full, with a waiting list
Studley High School has a capacity 780 but is educating 847 pupils, with no 6th form.
GP facilities in Studley are over-extended, no NHS dentistry.
Studley patient referrals are sent to Warwick Hospital.
A large development at SG22 will generate a car population of at least 1,500
The problem is traffic discharging at the Crabbs Cross roundabout, which is acknowledged to be substandard and the junction at Spernal.
Train services are limited to Redditch, where the cross-city line runs only across Birmingham.

No

Representation ID: 96955

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Emily Morris

This is regarding the Clopton quarter. Any development on this proposed site would be detrimental to wildlife across the Welcombe hills area. There would be an irreversible impact on the landscape around the nature reserve. The greenbelt land is a key part of the local community, enjoyed and appreciated by many, this would be a devastating blow to the local area. The increased flooding from building here and the traffic and infrastructure implications, we simply wouldn't cope. You will turn what is a beautiful place to live into a mess!

No

Representation ID: 97096

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Tysoe Parish Council

The local development plan assumes population growth and housing need until 2050, driving its policies. It proposes numerous Strategic Growth Locations and Potential New Settlements, which Tysoe Parish Council believe could harm South Warwickshire's rural character. Tysoe’s current protections will remain, but we strongly disagree with the SWLP's housing need assumption, which has increased by 104% compared to the Core Strategy, without credible evidence to justify this. This flawed premise risks considering unsuitable development sites and contradicts environmental goals. I cannot support the plan as presented due to these baseless housing numbers, despite some acceptable policies.

No

Representation ID: 97099

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Tysoe Parish Council

The use of the NSM makes this policy unacceptable.

No

Representation ID: 97139

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Sir Thomas White’s Charity and The King Henry VIII Endowed Trust, Warwick

Agent: Stansgate Planning

The document does not conform to national planning policy and must be redrafted to reflect the latest National Planning Policy Framework version.

Draft Policy 1 must confirm the key priorities of the SWLP as required by the Framework - to significantly boost the supply of homes in a sustainable manner, and provide sufficient employment land to meet the Districts’ needs. It must NOT set maximum provision figures. These would unnecessarily restrict the ability of the area to meet the key aims.

For housing provision, references to the 2022 HEDNA should be removed. The policy should set out the minimum number of homes needed assessed using the Standard Method (see NPPF paragraph 62). Adequate flexibility must be incorporated for changing circumstances, and to accommodate housing needs arising from beyond the Districts’ boundaries.

We support meeting much of the housing requirement though new settlements and significant extensions to existing settlements. Particular attention should be given to accommodating development in locations already supported by necessary infrastructure and facilities, and those where they can be provided. In accordance with NPPF paragraph 22 the plan period should be extended from 25 years to at least 30 years, and housing and employment requirements increased accordingly.

Other

Representation ID: 97213

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Kyn Aizlewood

I support Option 4: Sustainable Travel and Economy, but the plan lacks a clear strategic vision, focusing instead on housing numbers. The Community Planning Alliance highlights an overemphasis on new builds rather than urban regeneration. The NPPF prioritises brownfield over Green Belt development, yet the plan fails to explore town centre renewal, with unnecessary Green Belt loss. Infrastructure funding is uncertain, risking failure. Affordable housing, not executive estates, is needed. A 20-minute neighbourhood approach is preferable, but only with firm infrastructure commitments. We should build up, not out, prioritising urban density over countryside sprawl to support sustainable, connected communities.

No

Representation ID: 97226

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Squab Hall Farm

Agent: Mr Jack Barnes

The South Warwickshire Councils must continually review the Local Housing Need up to adoption, they must consider an increased higher housing need, implement a 5% lapse rate to account for unimplemented commitments, and reassess the existing commitments and windfall allowance as outlined.

No

Representation ID: 97265

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Marrons

The South Warwickshire Councils must continually review the Local Housing Need up to adoption, they must consider an increased higher housing need, implement a 5% lapse rate to account for unimplemented commitments, and reassess the existing commitments and windfall allowance as outlined.

No

Representation ID: 97333

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lucy White

I do not agree that Bidford should be an area of sustainable growth as no access to railway other than crossing a medieval bridge to Honeybourne which has limited parking . This is not sustainable. There is limited education facilities, an already stretched medical and dental facility and the village has grown exponentially with housing in the last 10 years.

Yes

Representation ID: 97360

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Godwin Developments

Godwin Developments are supportive of the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 1. It is noted that the Strategic Growth locations will include a mixture of Green Belt and non-Green Belt locations. Consideration should also be given to sites that would be considered as ‘Grey Belt’ as per the definition set out in the latest NPPF.

No

Representation ID: 97448

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes

Agent: Harris Lamb

The plan should refer to the standard method not the HEDNA. An uplift to the housing requirement is needed to address the affordable housing need. Lapse rates and non-implementation need to be considered. Existing commitments need updating when the new monitoring year starts in April.

Other

Representation ID: 97464

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Lagan Homes

Agent: Stantec

The Plan must acknowledge the advantages of meeting a higher housing need

Yes

Representation ID: 97491

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Brenda Stewart

no comment

No

Representation ID: 97494

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Logan Walsh

Local amenities already over-stretched, include GPs, dentists, hosptials.
Limited local employment opportunities.
There are no exceptional circumstances to justify removal of green belt land in accordance with NPPF. Other sites far more suitable. Without boundaries the gap between kenilworth and leek wootton would be reduced. Which undermine the purpose of greenbelt and kenilworth boundary would extend into the countryside. Extra traffic along unsuitable single road(Rouncil lane) already used by HGVS from the abattoir, would become more dangerous.
Sites should not be influenced by developers preferences to develop easy and cheap sites.
Creating more danger for cyclists of national cycle route52.

No

Representation ID: 97575

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Toni Sharp

NO

No

Representation ID: 97602

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Anna Avino

Leamington has already exploded in the past five years. The roads are jammed, the services are overstretched and the vast housing developements and population explosion is changimg the character of the area and making it unpleasant. Infrastructure cannot cope with all the new 29,000 homes being concentrated in a few massive developments in the area particularly south Leamington and Whitnash which is gridlocked. These houses need to be fully dispersed across the whole of warwickshire with every town and village taking a handful of them. This woudl be a fairer, more sustainable appproach as the infratrusture will always play catch-up.

No

Representation ID: 97692

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: William Davis Limited

Agent: Marrons

The South Warwickshire Councils must continually review the Local Housing Need up to adoption, they must consider an increased higher housing need, implement a 5% lapse rate to account for unimplemented commitments, and reassess the existing commitments and windfall allowance as outlined.

No

Representation ID: 97821

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Jeffery

N/A

No

Representation ID: 97974

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Maninder Chaggar

No to any further expansion. It is a total disaster we cannot absorb more people or cars.

No

Representation ID: 98066

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Janine McComiskey

No, because you are planning to build on green belt. I agree with the Green Party's view that the most effective way to reduce the number of green fields to be allocated in this local plan is to shorten the period so that it would end in 2042. This would mean that only about half of the new land would be available for development and would put the Council in a much stronger negotiating position with developers. The developers should not get to cherry pick sites that are not going to benefit current and future residents, merely line their pockets!

Other

Representation ID: 98084

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Elias Topping

Whilst we broadly support the strategy of directing development to sustainable locations, we believe that the councils' HEDNA should fully accommodate the changes made to the Standard Method in December 2024. Greater clarity is needed on how the joint councils will meet what is likely to be a significant shortfall in housing provision to ensure when potential sites come forward consent can be granted in line with the Government's aspiration to create 1.5 million new homes in the course of the next 5 years.

No

Representation ID: 98116

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Flower

We have lived in Wellesbourne for over 15 years. The school ,Drs, public transport, roads and river levels were already under stress from over development. The new proposals for planned houses and their location are absurd, knowing all the factors listed above. Road access for the proposed development is nowhere near sufficient, and realistically, with the expected influx of new vehicles, could be considered to be nothing short of dangerous.
With 300 new homes proposed, the local primary school does not have the capacity for the number of primary age children expected. Dr's and NHS dentist likewise.

Other

Representation ID: 98133

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Thwaites Estates

Agent: Lavata Group Limited

Twenty-four areas have been identified as locations for potential strategic growth. To provide the opportunity to consider reasonable alternatives, the identified strategic growth locations could accommodate well in excess of South Warwickshire’s housing and employment needs, and it is not expected that all of the areas will be allocated in the SWLP. If not all of these are required then at this stage of plan making it should be clear which ones are not going to be considered further, to actually have a ‘Preferred Option’ to then fully test and demonstrate where housing will be located.

No

Representation ID: 98225

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Woodward

N/a

No

Representation ID: 98228

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Holly Farm Business Park

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Generally no as it is considered the primary purpose of the Plan should be to meet the growth requirements expected of South Warwickshire in a sustainable way.

The emerging plan appears to be focused on strategic scale developments and ‘big players’ whereas a more balanced approach is necessary. There also appears to be a strong ‘urban-focussed’ agenda when a more balanced approach is required, given the prevailing rural character of the plan area.

This is the case with the potential allocation of land for employment development at Holly Farm Business Park.

No

Representation ID: 98310

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Catesby Estates

Agent: Mr Will Whitelock

The revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework and the Standard Method for calculating local housing need necessitate a minimum of 2,188 dwellings per annum in South Warwickshire. The outdated Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) should be updated to reflect current demographic trends, and the true housing need must be thoroughly assessed. Long Itchington is identified as a sustainable location for additional housing growth, with necessary services available. Therefore, the site north of Leamington Road should be allocated for residential development in the South Warwickshire Local Plan.

No

Representation ID: 98336

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Daine Davis

In my view, the housing demand calculations are based on some very spurious assumptions and seem to assume a continuing never-ending growth in population, backed up with very few facts. Current housebuilding has been far slower than earlier plans assumed, and demand for many years to come can be met by existing allocations. There is no need to redesignate green belt land to meet reasonable growth assumptions.

No

Representation ID: 98382

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Garry Rollason

The housing target for the area is impractical and totally unsustainable in a rural area like South Warwickshire. The infrastructure will not be able to cope without massive investment which is unlikely to be forthcoming. Development alongside existing rail stations only makes sense if those stations can cope with the extra demand and are accessible - many rural stations such as Hatton Station are not suitable sites for further development. No development should not take place in the Green Belt. Priority should be to develop the area around Gaydon (because of its proximity to M40).

No

Representation ID: 98423

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lucy Flynn

Agent: Stansgate Planning

The SWLP Preferred Options does not currently conform to national planning policy and must be redrafted to reflect the latest version of the National Planning Policy Framework, currently that published in December 2024 (with February 2025 amendments).
Taking this into account, Draft Policy 1 must confirm the key priorities of the SWDP as required by the Framework - to significantly boost the supply of homes in a sustainable manner, and to provide sufficient employment land to meet the Districts’ needs. The Policy must NOT set maximum provision figures as this would unnecessarily restrict the ability of the area to meet the key aims.
In respect of housing provision, all reference to the 2022 HEDNA should be removed. Instead the policy should set out the minimum number of homes needed assessed using the Standard Method (in accordance with Framework paragraph 62). Adequate flexibility must be built in to meet changing circumstances, and to accommodate housing needs arising from beyond the Districts ‘boundaries.
The Plan proposes to meet much of the housing requirement though the allocation of new settlements and significant extensions to existing settlements. This is supported as an appropriate response to meeting housing needs within the Districts. Particular attention should be given to accommodating development in locations which are already supported by necessary infrastructure and facilities, as well as those where they can be provided.
In accordance with Framework paragraph 22 the plan period should be extended from 25 years to at least 30 years, and the housing and employment requirements increased accordingly

No

Representation ID: 98457

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: E Booth

The developments proposed must follow sustainable development.
SG06 is not sustainable as -
1) reduces biodiversity
2) promotes climate change
3) increases chance of flooding
4) reduces options of health sustainability and wellbeing mentally and physically
5) destroys the heritage and identity of the local area
6) reduce food sustainability