No

Representation ID: 88189

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rozanne Harris

Instead of 'limiting' the building on green belt land, you shouldnt even consider these areas. There are so many brownfield sites which could be utilised before the green belt.

Yes

Representation ID: 88202

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Mr John Tristram

Small, well controlled developments are welcomed, especially redevelopment of existing sites with modern, high quality housing. With the frequently stated wish, by government, for the elderly to downsize, it is important that any new development should include suitable single story housing, to provide accommodation for those wishing to release a large family home

No

Representation ID: 88335

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Maurice Stokes

Filling in areas increases the local population density without the adequate social amenities will lead to price rises and social unrest. Affordable housing will quickly be exchanged to market value in line with the desirability of living in the green belt.

No

Representation ID: 88337

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Annette Pharo

Other brownfield sites, derelict housing areas and unused buildings in towns and cities should be developed before building on precious greenbelt land. Affordable housing would be snapped up by investors and sold on at profit very easily so the housing would not benefit the people it is proposed for.

Other

Representation ID: 88363

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Barrie Hayles

Parishes and communities worked tirelessly in producing their Local Plans last time around when this was required of them by District Councils. The conclusions they reached then need to be supported in any plans now being made or their time consuming work is undermined and local democracy is seen to be ignored.

Yes

Representation ID: 88530

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs vivien bryer

Housing associations and self-build are more likely to provide the sort of homes that are desperately needed.

Yes

Representation ID: 88549

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sidney Syson

If development is of less than 10 houses there will not be a requirement for affordable housing, which is often the very housing that is needed in such areas to support local employment.

Yes

Representation ID: 88612

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Helen Drinkwater

REFID: 8 The Green, Snitterfield. Between this site and the village boundary is approx 1 hectare of land with good access off a hammerhead at the end of Frogmore Road. It also has separate pedestrian access. The land is of little agricultural use and should be considered for residential development, especially if The Green is developed as it would become landlocked and no longer part of the Green Belt. If The Green is not approved then this small parcel of land would still be a useful addition to the village.

Other

Representation ID: 88630

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ida Marjorie Brown

I agree in part. I agree with infill of small developments in green belt but i do not agree extending boundaries of some of the Historic Towns to meet a goal that can be provided elsewhere. Limiting infill in green belt to one hectare is admirable but 2-3 hectares is more sensible.

Other

Representation ID: 88716

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Jerry Corless

Infrastructure needs to be considered in any decision to develop any site as infrastructure is expensive to provide but almost impossible to provide once a site has been developed.
Brown sites may well have a level of infrastructure in place reducing the cost of provision.

No

Representation ID: 88775

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jackie Whordley

Greenbelt should not be built on where it is infilling between two towns/cities. Kenilworth will become part of Coventry if the land between the two places is built on. Greenbelt is supposed to prevent urban sprawl - why therefore are we considering building here? Consider grey belt land and don’t join our town with Coventry!

Yes

Representation ID: 88830

Received: 18/02/2025

Respondent: Mr CHARLES MICHAEL MOGG

A very practical approach with much higher chance of achieving acceptable growth without the mirage of unfunded political wish lists

Other

Representation ID: 89105

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sara Bird

I believe Parish councils should heavily lead in this area, they know their patch and where appropriate development may be. Any development of this nature should be kept small in scale and in keeping with the area. Development in open countryside should be avoided and development should be concentrated on spaces immediately adjacent to existing housing stock to stop sprawl across the countryside.

Other

Representation ID: 89128

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Tanworth Residents Association

We oppose the revision of existing Green Belt Boundaries.
There must be no question of allocating target numbers to BUABs in Green Belt. Applications must continue to be determined on an individual basis and decided on their merits.

Other

Representation ID: 89232

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Lesley Lovett

SMALL infill builds in appropriate areas are preferable to large numbers of houses

No

Representation ID: 89444

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Helen Lakin

We object to the potential "infill" developments locally, i.e. Cut Throat Lane Hockley Heath for the following reasons:
This is greenbelt, ancient woodland and farmland with virtually no residential property.
There is no street lighting in this area
There are no pavements and the area is not on a bus route or anywhere near a train station
There is no mains sewage
There is no mains gas
There is no fibre Broadband, none proposed, internet speed is very poor
There is no Doctors Surgery locally
There is no Pharmacy
There is only one School which is Junior & Infants

No

Representation ID: 89686

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Derek Bull

Green belt land should not be built on, the character of Bearley would be detrimentally ruined .

Yes

Representation ID: 89689

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Graham Bamford

Small scale developments should be considered where sensible . For instance, there is a derelict building (been stood empty for over 10 years) and unused land in Shrewley Common which could benefit from building a small number of dwellings. Such sites do less harm to the existing landscape and environments and require minimal infrastructure investment.

No

Representation ID: 89696

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Phil Jones

I do not agree that building should take place beyond existing built-up area boundaries in the Green Belt, which would result in urban sprawl.

Yes

Representation ID: 89741

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Compton Verney

n/a

No

Representation ID: 89822

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mr SIMON BEACHAM

The BW site is all green belt and you are proposing a new town development which contradicts your policy on green belt which states:

In Green Belt locations:
Limited infilling within Built Up Area Boundaries;
Limited affordable housing for local community needs, within or adjacent to Built Up Area Boundaries.

Other

Representation ID: 89868

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Dr Stephen Browett

I do not agree with the infill of greenbelt land due to environmental preservation reasons but do agree with adding in more development into non-greenbelt locations.

No

Representation ID: 89920

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Pillerton Priors Parish Council

Where BUABs have been agreed with SDC as part of a Parish Plan then those agreed boundaries should stand. Many small villages were advised not to tackle the huge task of working up a Neighbourhood Plan but instead to draw up a Parish Plan. These Parish Plans are scrutinised and adopted by SDC and we expect them to be taken into account in the SWLP. We urge great caution in considering small scale development on unallocated sites in non-green belt locations, particularly if the site in question is adjacent to a BUAB.

No

Representation ID: 90053

Received: 22/02/2025

Respondent: Catherine Hewson

Rural communities in south warwickshire do not have the infrastructure to support further housing, even on a small scale. Surface water flooding and out dated sewage and pump stations are insufficient to support developments without significant investment. If development is necessary in rural communities it should focus on affordable housing for local people, as this is in very short supply. There should also be provision put in place first to improve access to GPs, schools and public transport. Speed limits and enforcement should also be catered for, as the increase in volume and speed of rural traffic is unsustainable.

No

Representation ID: 90057

Received: 22/02/2025

Respondent: Catherine Hewson

We should protect south warwickshire and housing should be for local people and the local housing need.

Other

Representation ID: 90130

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Colin Sanders

This is the way to progress. Larger “ self sufficient “ type development will kill our culture and heritage.

No

Representation ID: 90148

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Maria Giblin

Risk of poor design and not looking at the bigger picture of creating infrastructure

No

Representation ID: 90198

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Fox

It seems peculiar that the proposed new settlements have land earmarked for commercial property - when SDC are presently converting commercial areas as close to transport links as the ones being proposed - eg Timothy bridge street in Stratford, and allowing these to become property developments. This suggests there is insufficient commercial demand. So how real are the proposals.

Yes

Representation ID: 90253

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Moira Rees

If New Settlements and SGAs are going to contribute the majority of new houses because they can justify the full infrastructure needed to make 20 minute neighbourhoods, then any additional sites should be small scale. Anything larger than 5 or 10 houses will cause damage to existing communities and put potentially unbearable strains on the existing amenities and infrastructure. Limited infilling may be acceptable in the right circumstances but even then the effect on schools, hospitals, GPs, sewage, etc need to be considered carefully

Yes

Representation ID: 90256

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Stuart Keighley

I agree with this approach although I have concerns about affordable low cost housing in rural areas. These are generally for low income families who might not be able to afford a car. Bus services are essential for these locations to prevent these families from being isolated.