No

Representation ID: 90335

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Hedley Cooper

Allowing applications for the development of non allocated parcels of land will encourage a free for all by opportunistic developers which will change the nature of existing villages and the communities within them. Local amenities such as schools, sewage treatment plants, water supply, doctors surgeries will be overwhelmed by local increases in the population as these requirements seem to seldom be taken into account.

No

Representation ID: 90419

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Dr Louise Stewart

BW is not a small scale development. It increases the size of the existing settlement by 800%. Similarly it is not infill, it is a ribbon development joining with Stratford. This is contrary to statements made at the start of the SWLP consultation around appropriate development. There is absolutely no need, (other than rampant profiteering of land owners) for productive agricultural land to be concreted over when there are are other more suitable locations already proposed. The infrastructure alone makes this proposal wholly untenable, coupled with lack of UK self sustainability in food production.

No

Representation ID: 90725

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Averil Stewart

greenbelt should not be used until all other infill has been used

No

Representation ID: 90796

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Maxine Mayer

Historically this approach has led to settlement creep with no infrastructure to support it and has never encouraged the use of brownfield first. This is the main reason why the developers want these sites identified asap so they can cherry pick and make phasing difficult for the councils.
Development in the green/grey belt should be restricted to the proposed policy.

Yes

Representation ID: 91076

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Julian Brown

Agree. Sensible approach especially in rural areas and towns that offer infilling.

Other

Representation ID: 91114

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Radford Semele Parish Council

Radford Semele Parish Council welcomes the proposal for built up area boundaries and for the use of Neighbourhood Plans as an appropriate mechanism for making housing and employment allocations in smaller settlements.
Keeping under consideration the large number of sites put forward by developers which are neither in the strategic growth locations nor any potential new settlements and are over one hectare in size is entirely inconsistent with the overall approach to development set out in the consultation. These sites should be excluded from consideration.

Yes

Representation ID: 91222

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Norman

sensible

No

Representation ID: 91239

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Mr David Haggarty

Affordable housing is what is needed and in small developments is never profitable for developers and doesn't get built.

No

Representation ID: 91345

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Giles Dugmore

Site 492 Land at The Greens, South of Alcester Road, SuA, and site 827 South of Alcester Road, SuA: A boundary is a boundary and these sites are outside relevant ones under previous local and neighbourhood plans. Allowing development of plots adjacent to a boundary negates the boundary and should not be allowed. Constant flex and change benefits developers and leaves the public in a constant anxious state, not knowing if they will be impacted by development or not. Once agreed plans should hold fast until the next public planning process is undertaken.

Other

Representation ID: 91390

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Berni Newcombe

Extra hard standing means extra run off which exacerbates the situation. Hersey floods regularly now as a result. All has been documented to planners with each application. Extra housing in Priors contributes to the problem as all run off water flows downhill into Hersey.
In addition, the water supply is inadequate for current demands. Each summer water tankers congest the road by Caffeine and Machine transporting extra water by road when supplies dwindle. The area cannot support more housing full stop.

Yes

Representation ID: 91472

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Duncombe

None.

No

Representation ID: 91522

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Steven Jones

I do not agree to the plan.
Bearley is a small village with a small population. An increase of 6800 houses would be the end of Bearley village life and destroy the surrounding green belt forever.
Itemised below are some of the reasons for my objection.
Additional information can be supplied if required.
1: Impact on the environment
2: Impact on traffic and transportation
3: Impact on noise levels and pollution
4: Impact on the character and appearance of the area
5: Increased risk of flooding and sewage overflow

Other

Representation ID: 91531

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Beth Palmer

I agree to some degree for small infill developments

No

Representation ID: 91538

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Wellesbourne and Walton Parish Council

Some valid points made which we support. However, the situation of individual settlements such as our need to be considered and in particular in our case, the lack of any infrastructure to support the current increase before any further developments which must come with the appropriate infrastructure.

Other

Representation ID: 91628

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Oakwood Planning Limited

Small scale development on unallocated sites should also make provision for local market dwellings to meet an identified local need, in or adjacent any settlement.

Other

Representation ID: 91684

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Taylor

They must take into account chnages needs and the Neighbourhood Plans

No

Representation ID: 91954

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kitten Von mew

No. You need to go and LOOK at the areas, not just see what is green belt and what is not. There may be a place of stunning natural beauty in a pretty village that will be built on, but is not green belt, so will be crammed to the gunnels with inappropriate housing. We’ve seen it happen before.

Yes

Representation ID: 91978

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mr James OShea

If development is built adjoining current settlements where there is minimal landscape impact then this should be considered.

No

Representation ID: 92118

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Robert Cammidge

In small village locations the conversion of existing agricultural buildings can be appropriate and cause less harm to the village setting. However, development outside a built village envelope is often damaging and leads to extension of the village in sensitive green belt locations. This is to be discouraged especially if it is as set out in the proposed policy “adjacent “to existing buildings for the above reasons. I would therefore not agree with this part of the proposed policy.

No

Representation ID: 92143

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mr and Mrs William and Audrey Marsh

{Text redacted-Personal information}
Land purchased in 1984 used as garden is incorrectly shown outside the Parish boundary. Land belonging to 5 other neighboring properties purchased at the same time is shown within the Parish boundary. The other 5 properties in 2017 were re designated from green belt to garden. Our property was not.
{Text redacted as personal information included}

Other

Representation ID: 92223

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Sara Burney

I believe that smaller scale developments are infinitely more sensible than the monster-estates proposed within. They should be more sympathetic to the surrounding area, including ensuring that our towns and villages retain their sense of community. New residents can intermingle with existing residents, for the purpose of enhancing the area rather than detracting from it. We absolutely do not need to replicate what is happening in Leamington, with thousands upon thousands of homes being built, creating enormous estates devoid of character and community.

Yes

Representation ID: 92300

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Daphne Tilley

Small scale development does not impinge on the overall character of an area, and is much preferred. Large scale settlement has a great ripple effect transitioning across the whole district.

Yes

Representation ID: 92359

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Harbury Parish Council

Due consideration should be paid to the fact that some locations in the SWLP will have seen considerable development in the last core strategy period, and might now be under strain in terms of services etc. A piecemeal approach risks overlooking the cumulative impact of development.

Yes

Representation ID: 92383

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Christine Slaughter

Small, infill sites have a lesser impact on the community, infrastructure, emissions and open landscape.

No

Representation ID: 92555

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Bex Thomson

Do not agree with any development on green belt

No

Representation ID: 92576

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Phillip Johnson

I do not agree with any developments on Green belt land.

No

Representation ID: 92713

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Mervyn Longford

Existing built up area boundaries should be maintained unless significant development expansion is proposed. Boundaries are usually taken from existing features such as wildlife corridors and other heritage assets which must be
protected. Spatial Growth against conservation areas cannot be acceptable.
With a development policy for New Settlements, infill development becomes undesirable.

Yes

Representation ID: 92774

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jon Cheek

Any development should be controlled and should be in keeping with the existing environment and should not reduce or affect the existing residence in anyway ! Any development should have restrictions imposed on the developer and the local residents must also benefits from the development in some way

The smaller development is a better approach as it will, have less impact and disruption to the local area and surely will be more cost affective to the council as major upgrade will be required to be carried and these cost can be imposed on the developers

Yes

Representation ID: 92863

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Alison Blake

It's the type of dwelling which matters in these cases. Affordable homes for young people and families

Yes

Representation ID: 92991

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr oliver spicer

More smaller sites will improve social inclusion and reduce crime.