Yes

Representation ID: 97481

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Lagan Homes

Agent: Stantec

The policy is supported by thresholds must be clear and obvious

Yes

Representation ID: 97519

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Brenda Stewart

I agree

No

Representation ID: 97544

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Ellie Salmon

Far better levels of Sustainability and utilisation of all levels of infrastructure. People generally want to live and work close to a town in terms of short travel distances, community and facilities.

Yes

Representation ID: 97570

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Martin Winter

N/A

No

Representation ID: 97577

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Clive Henderson

Without justify a need to meet demand from elsewhere small settlements without the required infrastructure improvements should not be permitted.
Limited infill might be acceptable but as this has already happened over recent years already there are probably few suitable opportunities.

Yes

Representation ID: 97609

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 in smaller settlements across the whole of warwickshire with every town and village taking a handful of them. This would be a fairer, more sustainable appproach.

No

Representation ID: 97700

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Melanie Elkington

I do not agree with infill building using Green Belt sites. The Green Belt is there for a reason and should remain so. There are plenty of other sites that can be used for small scale building , it is time developers were made to redevelop sites not build on Green Belt as its easier .

Other

Representation ID: 97806

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Jeffery

Small scale development is suitable but not in the green belt

No

Representation ID: 97956

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: E Innes

I agree with infill development but proposals appears to be connecting unconnected sites which is not infill. Further, green belt proposals such as site B1 clearly violate the Policy Direction 3.

Other

Representation ID: 97965

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Clarke

Emphasis should be placed on development within existing built-up areas particularly redundant retail and commercial sites that are no longer required for that purpose. Conversion of existing buildings to meet new requirements (housing and commercial facilities) should be encouraged.

No

Representation ID: 98091

Received: 06/03/2025

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.

Other

Representation ID: 98145

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Thwaites Estates

Agent: Lavata Group Limited

Whilst we agree with the overall approach in Draft Policy Direct 3, at this stage of the Local Plan, many of these approaches should have been adopted for the Preferred Options Stage. For example a revised Settlement Hierarchy should have been established as part of the Preferred Options consultation. The direction is too vague and demonstrates that there is no clear direction. This settlement hierarchy has to be included in Part 1 given that it includes the Spatial Growth Strategy which already provides most of the criteria for assessing the Settlement Hierarchy.

No

Representation ID: 98235

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Woodward

N/a

Other

Representation ID: 98268

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Philip Sykes

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.

Settlement Boundaries need to be set by the Neighbourhood Plan. Local knowledge and information is vital to their operational performance as an planning tool.

Yes

Representation ID: 98393

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Susan Hague

Yes in order to keep the present green and the rural nature of the area.

No

Representation ID: 98402

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Holly Farm Business Park

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Smaller scale developments fulfil a significant role in meeting future needs and given as much importance as strategic allocations. Existing settlement boundaries should be reviewed and consideration given to creating new boundaries in those settlements without them.

The changes to the approach on Green Belt in the December 2024 NPPF update need to be fully taken on-board, including the fact that the land at Holly Farm Business Park expansion (Sites 239 and 530) can be considered as Grey Belt.

Other

Representation ID: 98459

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Philip Sykes

Settlement boundaries should be a Neighbourhood Plan responsibility. Local knowledge is absolutely vital in establishing these.

Other

Representation ID: 98495

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: SupremeTech

Agent: Delta Planning

SupremeTech supports the principle of Draft Policy Direction 3 in recognising the need to plan for small scale development to complement the strategic growth strategy. SupremeTech consider that the draft policy direction should expand the criteria in relation to small-scale development on unallocated sites in Green Belt locations to include ‘Limited infilling within or adjacent to Built Up Area Boundaries’. SupremeTech are supportive of the criteria in relation to small-scale development on unallocated sites in non-Green Belt locations.

Please refer to our full response for further details.

Yes

Representation ID: 98560

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Salford Priors Parish Council

1. Balance the need for housing delivery with the protection of local housing needs and the appropriate scale of development for each settlement.
2. Review of the settlement hierarchy should ensure that any reclassification reflects local infrastructure capacity, environmental constraints, and community sustainability.
3. Neighbourhood Development Plans as a mechanism for allocating housing and employment land in smaller settlements is welcome, as it allows communities to shape development in a way that meets local needs.
4. Site selection must consider local infrastructure, services, and environmental impact to prevent overdevelopment in inappropriate locations.

Yes

Representation ID: 98799

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Old Milverton and Blackdown Parish Council

Old Milverton and Blackdown Joint Parish Council supports limited infilling within built up area boundaries within the Green Belt where it does not conflict with the five primary purposes of the Green Belt and where proposals contribute positively to the green/blue agenda.

Other

Representation ID: 98805

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Hayward Developments Ltd

Agent: Stansgate Planning

The proposed policy direction considers whether the SWLP should identify a number of small sites to meet the Framework requirement that at least 10% of housing be accommodate on sites no larger than 1 hectare. Failure to do this will result in planning by appeal which is entirely inappropriate in a plan-led system. Allocation in the SWLP will ensure appropriate provision to meet the national requirement and housing needs in settlements of all sizes.

No

Representation ID: 98952

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Robert Jones

I refer directly to the proposals earmarked for Great Alne. Significantly increasing the number of dwellings from 390 to 836 will have a detrimental impact on:
Traffic, in a village that already suffers with road safety issues. No speed management infrastructure where the speed limit is 30mph but most cars travel well in excess of this.
Pedestrian safety, as many of the roads do not have footpaths or lighting.
Agricultural usage/run-off, increasing the risks of flooding/water ingress into homes.
Public transport access for existing villagers.
Existing mains services.

No

Representation ID: 98955

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: MPTL

Agent: Harris Lamb

No, as well as identifying settlement boundaries for existing settlements, the SWLP should identify specific development boundaries for large scale free standing employment sites, such as Stoneleigh Park and the proposed Kingswood Business Park

No

Representation ID: 98959

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: (1) AG Family Trust 2024 & (2) N. Holdsworth

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Smaller scale developments fulfil a significant role in meeting future needs and given as much importance as strategic allocations. Existing settlement boundaries including Kingswood should be reviewed and this should take place now and not be deferred to a Part 2 plan. The changes to the approach on Green Belt in the December 2024 NPPF update need to be fully taken on-board, including the fact that the land to the east of Station Lane can be considered as Grey Belt.

Yes

Representation ID: 99026

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: J & E Evans Properties Limited

Agent: Marrons

The identification of small sites outside of the strategic growth allocations can address local housing needs and deliver other benefits, particularly where no provision has been made to designated neighbourhood areas. The selection of such sites should be guided by the Priority Areas, Spatial Growth Strategy, and the Overarching Principles. This should include land within Priority Area 3 and at Wootton Wawen. J & E Evans Properties respectfully requests that Land at Field Farm, Wootton Wawen (including sites 583, 584, 587 and 733, be included in the SWLP as a ‘small allocation’ in that context to bolster the 5YHLS.

No

Representation ID: 99038

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Keep Hatton Station Rural

I object because you are suggesting that "small-scale development .... in green belt locations". This is NOT acceptable. You should be considering other sites well before green belt. Area B1/SG07 is not subject to "special circumstances" as expressed in the NPPF 2024.

Yes

Representation ID: 99085

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ladbrook Park Golf Club

Agent: Marrons

Ladbrook Park Golf Club support the identification of small sites in order to ensure provision of a 5-year land supply. Failure to do so will render the Plan unsound.

Ladbrook Park Golf Club respectfully request that Land south of Penn Lane (Site 288) and North of Poolhead Lane (Site 289) be included in the SWLP as ‘small allocations’ in that context to bolster the five-year land supply.

Yes

Representation ID: 99087

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Kevan Russell

I broadly agree with this approach.
However areas which currently have a defined BUAB and are regarded as distinct villages with their own Neighbourhood Plans under the existing Core Strategy should continue to be treated in this way. Tiddington is an example.

Yes

Representation ID: 99126

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Charlotte Morgan

More sustainable approach as less impact on the landscape and on air pollution.

Yes

Representation ID: 99251

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr James Kennedy

Small scale and infill development makes effective use of brownfield sites and meets community needs.