Other

Representation ID: 102516

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Propernomics Ltd

Justification also includes para 74 of the NPPF which says that neighbourhood planning groups should also give particular consideration to the opportunities for allocating small and medium-sized sites.

Other

Representation ID: 102521

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Adam Griffiths

Small scale development needs to emphasise the community led element - many such developments just enable land owners to generate income and are not in the best interests of the community.

Yes

Representation ID: 102526

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Penelope Beswick

Small scale development on multiple sites is much more preferable in relatively small towns like Warwick, Kenilworth and Leamington Spa than vast swathes of development by volume house builders taking over green belt land on the periphery of such towns.

Yes

Representation ID: 102541

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Norrie

This seems reasonable.

Yes

Representation ID: 102649

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Phoebe Withnall

If applied properly, draft policy direction 3 could help prevent uncontrolled urban sprawl. Setting clear Built Up Area Boundaries (BUABs) gives certainty over where development is expected, and supporting Neighbourhood Development Plans allows local communities to shape growth.

No

Representation ID: 102660

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Diana Taulbut

The use of Green Belt should be for "exceptional needs" - and whilst 'local affordable housing' sound very worthy, in real terms there is no such thing in this case. It ought to mean proper secure rented council accommodation which cannot be sold off. In practice, due to exceptionally-high values of Green Belt development land, the usual failure to implement anything like a 40% 'affordable' (ie slightly discounted) housing by private developers and WDC to hold them to it, all that will happen is another private development of 5-bed exec homes in a lovely location. It's just not feasible.

Other

Representation ID: 102777

Received: 07/03/2025

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.

Other

Representation ID: 102854

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Louisa Smith

I do not believe that green belt should be built on willy nilly. We are in the middle of a climate emergency and we need to have green space, woodlands, agricultural land and space for nature.

Yes

Representation ID: 102941

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Agent: Marrons

Bloor Homes appreciates the importance of small sites towards ensuring a 5-year land supply. It is recognised that strategic growth allocations alone will not be sufficient to meet this target, and that other methods should be used along with the strategic allocations in order to identify the appropriate sites to do this.

Yes

Representation ID: 103031

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Peter Emmerson

I support the concept of Built up Area Boundaries and consider that limited infilling should be permitted within strict controls where these areas are located within the Green Belt. Building on large gardens, however, should not generally be permitted as they make an important contribution to the vidsual environment in built up areas and provide an impoortant habitat for wildlife.

The provision of affordable housing is especially important to enable young people to live in the areas where they have their roots. Therefore, limited provision of affordable housing within existing built up areas within the Green Belt may be acceptable.

No

Representation ID: 103037

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Christine Easton

Unfortunately I still have to disagree with this one too. Leave our green belt alone!
Most of the rest of the plan seems feasible. 5 years is sensible too.

Again leave our beautiful Cotswold alone!

Yes

Representation ID: 103075

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Chesterton and Kingston Parish Meeting

Small existing settlements without infrastructure should not be developed for anything other than small scale development

Other

Representation ID: 103098

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough - Salford Road, Bidford-on-Avon

Agent: Turley

There needs to be more clarification throughout the SWLP about what a ‘Strategic Allocation’ is and what a ‘small-scale development’ is.

Richborough encourage the SWLP authorities to consider the sites put forward through the Call-for-Sites and how these align with the ‘Spatial Growth Strategy Priority Areas 1 to 3’ and provide sufficient information within the SWLP to allow these sites to be delivered.

Other

Representation ID: 103099

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough - Gaydon Road, Bishop's Itchington

Agent: Turley

There needs to be more clarification throughout the SWLP about what a ‘Strategic Allocation’ is and what a ‘small-scale development’ is.

Richborough encourage the SWLP authorities to consider the sites put forward through the Call-for-Sites and how these align with the ‘Spatial Growth Strategy Priority Areas 1 to 3’ and provide sufficient information within the SWLP to allow these sites to be delivered.

Other

Representation ID: 103101

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough - Lighthorne Road, Kineton

Agent: Turley

There needs to be more clarification throughout the SWLP about what a ‘Strategic Allocation’ is and what a ‘small-scale development’ is.

Richborough encourage the SWLP authorities to consider the sites put forward through the Call-for-Sites and how these align with the ‘Spatial Growth Strategy Priority Areas 1 to 3’ and provide sufficient information within the SWLP to allow these sites to be delivered.

Other

Representation ID: 103104

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough - Sycamore Close, Stockton

Agent: Turley

There needs to be more clarification throughout the SWLP about what a ‘Strategic Allocation’ is and what a ‘small-scale development’ is.

Richborough encourage the SWLP authorities to consider the sites put forward through the Call-for-Sites and how these align with the ‘Spatial Growth Strategy Priority Areas 1 to 3’ and provide sufficient information within the SWLP to allow these sites to be delivered.

Other

Representation ID: 103107

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough - Kineton Road, Wellesbourne

Agent: Turley

There needs to be more clarification throughout the SWLP about what a ‘Strategic Allocation’ is and what a ‘small-scale development’ is.

Richborough encourage the SWLP authorities to consider the sites put forward through the Call-for-Sites and how these align with the ‘Spatial Growth Strategy Priority Areas 1 to 3’ and provide sufficient information within the SWLP to allow these sites to be delivered.

Other

Representation ID: 103111

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough - Wellesbourne Road, Wellesbourne

Agent: Turley

There needs to be more clarification throughout the SWLP about what a ‘Strategic Allocation’ is and what a ‘small-scale development’ is.

Richborough encourage the SWLP authorities to consider the sites put forward through the Call-for-Sites and how these align with the ‘Spatial Growth Strategy Priority Areas 1 to 3’ and provide sufficient information within the SWLP to allow these sites to be delivered.

Other

Representation ID: 103113

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough - Plough Lane, Bishop's Itchington

Agent: Turley

There needs to be more clarification throughout the SWLP about what a ‘Strategic Allocation’ is and what a ‘small-scale development’ is.

Richborough encourage the SWLP authorities to consider the sites put forward through the Call-for-Sites and how these align with the ‘Spatial Growth Strategy Priority Areas 1 to 3’ and provide sufficient information within the SWLP to allow these sites to be delivered.

Other

Representation ID: 103255

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Summers Family

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

The plan should recognise the potential for smaller scale developments to fulfil a significant role in meeting future growth needs. This should be quantified and given as much importance as strategic allocations.

It is important to stress that the changes to the approach on Green Belt in the December 2024 version of the NPPF needs to be fully taken on-board, including the fact that Elmhurst Farm (Site 518) can be considered as Grey Belt.

No

Representation ID: 103355

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Neal Appleton

Infill is controversial. Rural character is determined as much by the space between buildings as it is by the buildings themselves. Infill kills this character and results in pastiche development.
Limits for small-scale development. This figure should be consistent with the target for each settlement. For example, a village with a 20-year target of 50 homes, equates to 10 small-scale developments of 5 homes each; or one every 2 years. The scale of development should reflect the target. Ten is too large. Villages with a poor transport network should be considered unsuitable for developing at any scale.

No

Representation ID: 103460

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs S Farmer

A BUAB is meant to be a boundary that has been put in place for good reason, and building the other side of the boundary with an undefined threshold is vague and weak and renders the boundary pointless.

Whilst there is a difference between a huge development and a ‘small’ one, how many ‘small’ ones will be allowed to nibble away at the boundary until it’s no longer a boundary at all?

No

Representation ID: 103543

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Laura Nicholas

As a local resident, I strongly oppose SG05’s abd SG06's inclusion in the Local Plan. This development would destroy greenbelt land, harming biodiversity and depriving residents of vital outdoor space used for walking, exercise, and community activities. HS2 has already disrupted Cubbington- enough is enough. Infrastructure, including roads, schools, and healthcare, is overstretched, and further growth will worsen congestion and strain services. Offchurch Road and Windmill Hill are already too fast and unsafe for heavy traffic. Cubbington has a distinct village identity, which this development threatens to erase. The council must reconsider SG05 and protect our already pressured community.

Yes

Representation ID: 103566

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Jack Casey

Agree with Caveats. It is important that the Plan either allocates small and medium sized sites, including in sustainable villages, or has a policy provision that allows for such sites to come forward. On that basis the proposal to allow small and medium sized sites to come forward adjacent to the built up area boundaries is welcome.

Yes

Representation ID: 103602

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr ian shenton

.

Other

Representation ID: 103768

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Sarah Shalgosky

Current boundaries have no effect whatsoever and are increasingly infringed. Infilling has a detrimental effect on settlements with narrow access, intensifying congestion and neighbourhood disputes. If you going to impose boundaries, is there any chance they will be respected because currently, they are not.

No

Representation ID: 103814

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Scott Haberton

Cramming full housing estates into nice environments oversaturates facilities, and depletes nice areas.
Deliberate effort needs to be made to balance these areas with cultural, ecological and other factors to make them holistic NICE places to be. More houses alone is not the answer

No

Representation ID: 104192

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Mary Harman

It focuses on not upholding green belt protections for historic villages and open countryside or considering heritage and
food security.

Yes

Representation ID: 104250

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Amanda Waters

none

Other

Representation ID: 104327

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: South Warwickshire Foundation trust

Additional restrictions should be placed in small scale developments in green belt locations, including only allowing these in previously built up areas.