No

Representation ID: 95276

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Alamo

Agent: Harris Lamb

Whilst we welcome the valuable role that small sites can play in delivering the DIstrict's housing needs we are concerned about the delay in bringing forward such allocations by way of a part 2 plan. A mechanism should be introduced that will allow developments in sustainable settlements such as Salford Priors to come forward ahead of the part 2 plan being adopted.

Other

Representation ID: 95486

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Julia Gibson

Yes but with conditions: I totally agree with small developments BUT ONLY AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO HUGE NEW SETTLEMENTS. This is how villages grow organically and always have done and have less impact on existing infrastructure. Huge new developments destroy existing communities and overwhelm infrastructure. I would support small developments of up to 100 houses near to existing villages, or as infill that does not adversely affect existing residents and which enables the new residents to become part of the existing community. It is VERY IMPORTANT that communities absorb new residents, NOT that new developments overwhelm and destroy existing villages.

Yes

Representation ID: 95510

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Hatton Parish Council

re Green Belt locations...........limited affordable Housing: A Housing needs Survey , 2020 carried out by WRRC showed the need for 3 dwellings in Hatton Parish. Since then 150 have been/are being built.
Otherwise, infill development that supports local communities is welcome.

Yes

Representation ID: 95662

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Clarke

In addition, the Government and local authorities should be developing policies to bring under-used existing dwellings (ABNBs, second homes, etc) into the housing market rather than developing on green belt and rural land.

No

Representation ID: 95667

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: David Wilson Homes

Agent: Harris Lamb

We contend that the delay in allocating smaller sites in the more sustainable settlements will delay the delivery of housign and that as such a policy should be included that enables smaller sites to come forward in such locations in advance of the adoption of the part 2 plan.

No

Representation ID: 95681

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs J Waterhouse

N/A

Other

Representation ID: 95693

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Amanda Dyhouse

All aspects of why an area is in the Green Belt should be considered before granting status as infill.

Other

Representation ID: 95816

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Carter

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 is welcome.

In the case of Radford Semele there are nearly 100 hectares of land which the HELAA assessment still includes as under consideration for development. The continued consideration of these other sites under the HELAA is entirely inappropriate.

The provision allowing development adjacent to built-up area boundaries outside the Green Belt should be removed so that the criteria are the same within and outside the Green Belt.

Yes

Representation ID: 95880

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Lavin

Green belt land should be protected from development particularly large scale development above 10 dwellings.

Other

Representation ID: 95901

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Tesh

Draft Policy Direction 3 appears to contradict the purpose of existing Built Up Area Boundaries, namely to restrict development to within the BUAB. This draft policy will give developers carte blanche to try to build outside BUAB thus undermining the BUABs and the Neighbourhood Plans

Yes

Representation ID: 96148

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Baddesley Clinton Parish Council

Limited infill for specific needs of the community is preferable to large scale developments in Green Belt areas.

Other

Representation ID: 96199

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Tracey Mumford

Infilling with small amounts of housing in various locations would mean green belt land and mass development causing disruption to local people would be prevented.

Yes

Representation ID: 96292

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Southam Town Council

Southam Town, District and County elected representatives generally agree with this Policy Direction.

No

Representation ID: 96303

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Matthew Burns

More sites should be high density housing, such as tower blocks rather than low density housing. We need to protect our local environment

No

Representation ID: 96305

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: John Dinnie

The difficulty with small scale developments, as we have found in Shipston on Stour, is that a number of small scale developments can add up to one large scale development. In these situations steps should be taken to rebalance the community with the required infrastructure especially green blue infrastructure, open space, parks and playing fields before considering any extension of the BUAB or development adjacent to the BUAB.

No

Representation ID: 96395

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Elias Topping

The draft policy directive and the supporting HELAA need to be revised in light of recently issued Planning Practice Guidance in respect of Grey Belt land. In particular the support for small-scale development in Green Belt locations needs to be updated to reflect Government policy does not restrict this to limited infilling within Built Up Area boundaries. The draft text is contrary to guidance in the NPPF and PPG and should not be included in the policy.

Yes

Representation ID: 96440

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Julie Springate

But Green belt areas outside of village boundaries must be protected at all costs.
Building adjacent to a boundary is simply an excuse to keep creeping the boundary.

Other

Representation ID: 96570

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Shipston Town Council

This is badly worded. It appears to contradict the purpose of BUABs as they currently operate within the Core Strategy. We were specifically asked by the LPA to include a policy that defined a BUAB within our Neighbourhood Plan. This proved to be good advice as it served to discipline planning applications that sought to go beyond the BUAB. In this we were subsequently well supported by the LPA, including a case that went to appeal.

No

Representation ID: 96677

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Long Itchington Parish Council

Long Itchington already has a BUAB designed after extensive work between the PC and Stratford DC. If a redesignation of this boundary were to give the green light to unsuitable "infill" development this would be giving permission to speculative developers through the back door. The existing Neighbourhood Plans of all parishes must be respected. BUABs are there to stop urban spread in rural areas and villages. We urge you to think again.

Yes

Representation ID: 96696

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Janet Gee

no further comment

Yes

Representation ID: 96792

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’) supports the approach set out in Policy Direction 3.

Other

Representation ID: 96940

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Jeffery

small scale development would be ok as long as it isn't in the Green Belt

Yes

Representation ID: 96998

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Christopher Squire

Infill in current settlements is preferrable, it allows new houses in villages and towns as the population grows as well as having limited impact on local transport networks and the natural environment.

No

Representation ID: 97067

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carol Longford

Settlement boundaries are defined borders which are natural features and often environmental wildlife refuges. They should be protected.

Yes

Representation ID: 97079

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Cromwell Developments Limited

Yes

Yes

Representation ID: 97105

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Tysoe Parish Council

Yes

Other

Representation ID: 97330

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lucy White

I am in agreement that small scale development and infill developments are a good way to approach housing needs. However, increasing a village’s physical boundaries to essentially grab more land to build on, is unacceptable.

Other

Representation ID: 97365

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Godwin Developments

Godwin Developments acknowledge and support the provision of small scale and windfall development and the contribution it can make to South Warwickshire.

Within the context of Strategic Growth Location SG24, it is contended that the Build Up Area Boundary (BUAB) for Hockley Heath should be extended to reflect this growth option.

Other

Representation ID: 97373

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Daniel Hatcher

Rosconn Group consider that whilst the principal focus of the document is on new settlements and strategic growth locations, it will be essential that small and medium sites (up to 50 dwellings) are also allocated within Part 1 to ensure a deliverable supply of housing sites are available within the first 5 years of the Plan period in order to maintain a 5 year housing land supply. Such sites should be focussed adjacent to larger settlements and within the Priority Areas, these being the most sustainable locations where a good range of services, facilities and employment already exist.

No

Representation ID: 97453

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes

Agent: Harris Lamb

The plan needs to include a policy or mechanism that will allow development on non-strategic sites in the smaller sustainable settlements to come forward in advance of the part 2 plan being adopted.