Other

Representation ID: 99258

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

Small scale developments in towns and villages should only be allowed for local housing need.

No

Representation ID: 99269

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land - Wellesbourne

We do not support the use of the term small scale.

No

Representation ID: 99278

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Rawlings

There should not be any development on the Green Belt.

Other

Representation ID: 99291

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Summers Holdings Ltd

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

The potential for smaller scale developments to fulfil a significant role in meeting future growth needs should be recognised and given as much importance as strategic allocations. Existing settlement boundaries should be reviewed and new boundaries created. Tanworth-in-Arden contains 2 HELAA B sites (515 and 758) to allow smaller scale development supporting its services and facilities and in villages nearby.

Green Belt policy changes need to be fully taken on-board, e.g. Site 758 is Grey Belt. This is likely to increase the number of small-scale developments.

In a predominantly rural area, small sites should contribute significantly > 10% of supply.

No

Representation ID: 99441

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Diane Wilson

See previous comments

No

Representation ID: 99490

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jean Bull

Green belt needs to be maintained as where would people go for mental health wellbeing.

No

Representation ID: 99546

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Welford on Avon Parish Council

Any review of existing BUAB should be done in conjunction with the local communities and Parish Councils and be consulted upon in line the NDP process.

No autocratic imposition of new boudaries will be accepted !!

No

Representation ID: 99552

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Loades

Greenbelts should be left as exactly that; pieces of land untouched by development. There needs to remain an obvious divide between villages and towns, not be merged into one giant town. Certain villages, notably Newbold Pacey, are known for their peaceful walking routes and untouched stretches of countryside, these should not be considered for development. You will be damaging the environment for future generations, not enhancing it.

Yes

Representation ID: 99555

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Gillian Padgham

I broadly agree with this policy direction.

No

Representation ID: 99627

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Steven Murray

Agree to small scale developments but NOT in green belt or conservation areas.

Other

Representation ID: 99628

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Vanessa Caley

I strongly think that there should be no building on the green belt between Kenilworth and Coventry or Kenilworth and Warwick/Leamington area. Otherwise I think Kenilworth could lose its identity by merging with these other towns.

No

Representation ID: 99811

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Waller

There should be no building on the green belt even for small developments as this is meant to be a buffer zone to protect our countryside

Yes

Representation ID: 99983

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Adrian Parsons

This would be the preferred option but would still necessitate measures to accommodate and enhance biodiversity

No

Representation ID: 100004

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Sam Hill

Strongly object to this. Loss of more green land for poor quality housing design.

Yes

Representation ID: 100009

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Adam Quinney

many areas in south Warwickshire have road connections that are already struggling with traffic, but infilling small areas around villages, it should spread the congestion more evenly! A priority must be given for affordable housing, ie 2-3 bedrooms are required by many young couples, who wish to live in their home villages or near their place of work.

No

Representation ID: 100099

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Neil Brooker

There should be no change settlement hierarchy classification as defined Stratford District Core Strategy. Extremely small villages should not have any development unless it is Infill or community supported or inline with their local plan

No

Representation ID: 100131

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Cooper

Small scale developments may appear to be fairly simple but often have much bigger implications for small communities, i.e. loss of local amenity, increased traffic, drain on local infrastructure and services. Depending on size of community the impact of a development of say 4 houses in a small village could be equivalent to 100 plus in a large village.

Other

Representation ID: 100158

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Susan Harrison

So not only have new a new town of 6000-10000 homes built but also additional ad hoc new builds. Will there be and countryside left?

No

Representation ID: 100186

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Ann Colley

'Character' in areas could be potentially lost, but also areas of green space for local communities to enjoy and promote health and well being.

Yes

Representation ID: 100227

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

NA

Yes

Representation ID: 100334

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr peter spreadbury

We need low cost housing that provides easy access to transport, social, commercial, education, employment opportunities. Brown Field, In-Fill and land adjacent to existing infrastructure provides this. It is essential that homes are constructed for the benefit of those with below average income and not for the benefit of developers and large home building companies.

No

Representation ID: 100683

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Gladman are supportive of the SWLP reviewing and updating settlement boundaries where appropriate across South Warwickshire.
Irrespective of when the settlement boundaries are considered, be it in Part 1 or Part 2 of the SWLP, the policy should contain a mechanism to ensure that development beyond settlement boundaries can come forward should other allocations not deliver as expected and the supply drop. This will allow the Plan to respond effectively to changes in circumstance throughout the plan period and ensure that much needed market and affordable housing can be provided.
It must be recognised that small and medium-sized housebuilders are not limited to small sites of less than ten but can also develop sites of up to 100 units on the edge
of sustainable settlements. It is therefore important that the SWLP provides for a range of sites in terms of size, type and location if the Plan is to support wider Government ambitions to support diversification within the sector.
Growth of existing settlements should be part of the overall strategy. This will allow development to occur in sustainable locations and facilitate the continued viability
and vitality of settlements. Growth at existing settlements typically results in a dispersed spatial strategy which allocates sites in a range of locations and sizes,
increasing competition and delivery. Whilst not opposed to new settlements and large strategic allocations, these typically take longer to deliver owing to their complexity and therefore should not be considered in isolation.

Yes

Representation ID: 100696

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Catherine Hogarth

Yes to support local builders, but limit sites to 10 dwellings or less and don’t remove farmland to enable this. Reuse unused areas, for example the buildings in disrepair around Timothy Bridge Road. Ryan Hill Park could be made into a leisure and wellbeing centre, or a gated community- Only if public transport is increased to minimise additional traffic. Could include a river taxi.

Yes

Representation ID: 100803

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Doug Wallace

I only broadly agree. There is still the risk of simply adding to existing towns, such as Stratford, and creating urban sprawl. Again, transport and community infrastructures have to be a priority along with preserving green spaces. Consideration should be given to developing existing brownfield sites within existing towns - Stratford is a prime example of a town with lots of empty spaces within the town which should be considered first before putting new housing on the fringes of towns.

Yes

Representation ID: 100837

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr guy evans

The green belt has had a devastating effect on villages and towns within it stifling growth and stopping natural growth of villages and towns within it.
Villages and towns that are highly sustainable and have the infrastructure in place to cope with growth The settlement boundary should be Reviewed and allow Allow housing that will boost the local economy.

No

Representation ID: 100853

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land - Wellesbourne

We do not support the use of the term “small scale”. The SWLP Part 1 should support “proportionate” development within and adjacent to existing settlements.

Yes

Representation ID: 100863

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Rowington Landowner Consortium

Agent: Knight Frank LLP

Whilst it is acknowledged and accepted that small scale and infill development is important with a requirement of 10% to be accommodated on small sites, this policy should be enhanced to make reference to grey belt sites and previously developed land within and outside of the green belt.

No

Representation ID: 100926

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: The Princethorpe Foundation

Agent: Sworders

Strategic Growth proposals will not maintain the housing development required over the plan period and, in particular in the short-term, housing requirements will need to be met by development in and around existing settlements. Agree with the broad approach, but the draft policy direction still emphasises small-scale development and would limit growth of some of the larger settlements. The Plan should reinforce NPPF Paragraph 83 by allowing new housing opportunities for existing settlements, to assist their growth and allow them to thrive and support existing local services, either within that settlement or services within a neighbouring settlement.

Yes

Representation ID: 100972

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mac Mic Group

Agent: Marrons

Land East of Station Lane, Kingswood (Site 169) should be included in the SWLP as a small allocation to bolster the 5-year Housing Land Supply. The Site is the most accessible side of the village to the rail station (unlike 53 and 761), is well contained without long distances views (unlike 514 & 649) and does not make a contribution to Green Belt purposes (unlike 88 & 205), does extend the village envelope north beyond Rising Lane (unlike 235).

Other

Representation ID: 101000

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Stevens

Small scale development sounds like a semantic side step to avoid the real issue of providing the necessary growth in infrastructure to meet the needs of a growing population in a location i.e. if there is no legal obligation, just set aside infrastructure concerns and build in the hope that our creaking infrastructure, already failing will cope - it won't! there should be monitoring of this concern to extent that when new homes are approved their should be independent validation of the ability for the infrastructure to still be able to deliver required service safely.