No

Representation ID: 93391

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Daryl Kerin

Green Belt to be protected. Urban Spawl to cease. Urban Boundaries not to be extended. Use Infill, Brownfield and long term existing unoccupied housing.

No

Representation ID: 93457

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Denise Holroyde

Housing needs must be met within the areas they are required. People should not be made to relocate to unfamiliar areas because of lack of housing. This could create difficulty and tensions within families.

No

Representation ID: 93569

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Shelagh Marshall

Other areas outside of South Warwickshire should manage their own needs. This is unfair and undemocratic to the people of South Warwickshire.

No

Representation ID: 93596

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Christopher Bull

I think more higher density development or redevelopment of urban brownfield sites is a more appropriate way to manage the housing needs of these areas, otherwise we will create more traffic and pollution as a consequence

No

Representation ID: 93604

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Alan Griffith

South Warwickshire should not have to consider housing stock in the South of the region for overflow from HMA. ( Birmingham and Black Country)
Transport links in the South of the District are already heavily congested. When you view the access to BW settlement going North, either through Henley in Arden or back along the A46 to the M40 significant infrustucture would be needed. This would include By-Passes and dualing of many roads. The Train option has serious capacity restrictions. BW settlement could not justify such investment. Enviromently, increased travel distances back to Birmingham/Black Country unacceptable.

No

Representation ID: 93699

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr John Archer

There is so much grey belt land to be developed & empty housing that can be filled before we detroy what little countryside we have left

Yes

Representation ID: 93779

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr William Campbell

Agree in principle

No

Representation ID: 93853

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Christopher Bennett

As a matter of principle I do not agree that South Warwickshire should provide housing to address any shortfall in available sites in Birmingham the Black Country or Coventry. I simply do not believe that there is insufficient land in any of these authority areas to meet the housing needs of the populations there. It is wholly unsuitable that our pristine green belt land and valuable agricultural land and businesses should be sacrificed for the purposes of housing populations external to our communities when clearly they have enough land, facilities and infrastructure to meet their own needs.

No

Representation ID: 93950

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Beverley Comley

The current development is being bought by people from outside the area as it is unaffordable for those in the area. All social housing should be restricted to those with ties to the area and not others shipped in from other towns

No

Representation ID: 94089

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Horton

I fail to see how failures of other districts should become a problem for South Warwickshire. Coventry, Birmingham and Wolverhampton all have large City Centres with numerous brownfield sites. Should they not be considering compulsory purchase of redundant land within their own districts to meet any needs they are faced with?

Other

Representation ID: 94253

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Andrew Close

Should not the plan at this stage be clearer on the amount of housing/other needs and therefore the land that is required?
This seems a fundamental issue and goes to the heart of soundness. Residents can't comment on this policy direction without such information available and upfront; officers can't be expected to plan for options with any certainty either. Previous/existing studies should be used as the 'current' baseline if nothing else.

Other

Representation ID: 94300

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Dudley MBC

Welcome acknowledgement that Stratford-on-Avon falls within the GBBCHMA. Welcome the positive approach to date to address the GBBCHMA housing shortfall. Dudley MBC supports joint working to address the housing shortfall.

Welcome reference to refreshing the 2018 GBBCHMA Growth Study to assess the housing shortfall up to 2050. SWLP should reflect that a housing shortfall across the GBBCHMA has been demonstrated to date and housing shortfalls beyond 2031 are identified.

Welcome the identification of reserve sites that contribute towards the housing shortfall. Release mechanisms should be kept under consideration. SWLP should reflect that housing shortfalls continue to be identified beyond 2031.

No

Representation ID: 94312

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Waters

It's unclear how sites that are unsuitable for South Warwickshire's use can suddenly become suitable for demand outside South Warwickshire. What safeguards are there that other authorities have undertaken their duty 100% in attempting to find local sites?

No

Representation ID: 94351

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: James Springate

By building excess housing to cover the needs of other areas it will reduce the value of Warwickshire housing. Also, the destruction of the open countryside will lead people of higher net worth to move away leaving Warwickshire as a less attractive place to live.

No

Representation ID: 94421

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Teresa Hayes

I do not agree. I chose to retire in the Green Belt in Hatton, having saved for my retirement and working hard continuously in education for 37 years. I did not chose to be surrounded by houses. There are many brownfield sites and empty buildings in Coventry which should be used before encroaching on South Warwickshire Green Belt land. I strongly question the data for this requirement.

No

Representation ID: 94469

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Farrow

n/a

Yes

Representation ID: 94567

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon Town Centre Strategic Partnership

in principle but subject to the transport issues as identified in the Town Transport Group response. The policy makes no mention of the specific transport and connectivity requirements of accommodating growth needs from outside the SWLP area. By definition, these transport needs are likely to be for employment outside South Warwickshire, and therefore the location and potential specific infrastructure required should be part of an assessment into providing for
these needs.

Other

Representation ID: 94783

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Kineton Parish Council

Possibly, but the order of delivery should release the reserve sites closest to the relevant conurbation first.
Eg to accommodate housing need from Coventry available sites nearest to Coventry should be released first irrespective of whether they are least favoured by developers. The Policy should not be used as an excuse by developers to pick up the “low hanging fruit”

No

Representation ID: 94817

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford-upon-Avon Town Transport Group

The policy makes no mention of the specific transport and connectivity requirements of accommodating growth needs from outside the SWLP area. By definition, these transport needs are likely to be for employment outside South Warwickshire, and therefore the location and potential specific infrastructure required should be part of an assessment into providing for these needs.

No

Representation ID: 94996

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Anthony Cocker

I disagree with the approach of considering the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market. South Warwickshire has very little in common with these areas, and much more in common with North Oxfordshire - from the perspective of economics, environment, and community.

No

Representation ID: 95047

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Robert Clarke

Housing needs from outside of the area should not be accomodated by increasing the housing availability within South Warwickshire. This will lead to increased travel for commuting, and economically would not support or sustain the local community with a significant proportion of expenditure being paid to businesses outside of the Warwickshire region.
The majority of commuting for employment for example would be towards areas within the West Midlands area, increasing traffic issues in the surrounding regions eg on to the M42, towards Birmingham etc. exacerbating already busy commuter routes.

No

Representation ID: 95063

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lynette Sutton

As stated, Warwick should not be meeting unmet needs for areas a long way away eg Birminghamm/ Black Country.

No

Representation ID: 95110

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anna Finerty

No I do not agree

No

Representation ID: 95145

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs carol boden

Hockley heath is not suitable for a massive increase in housing Because:
insufficient infra structure i.e health service struggling even with present population
Roads are congested and not coping with the traffic in the village now. There are no GP in the village, no pharmacy. no bank. The road at the junction of old Warwick road and Stratford road dangerous as cars turning into Stratford road, the Co-op, towards Stratford and towards Birmingham as well as the chip shop. Cars can't park to go into the shops over the canal bridge or at the co-op section.

No

Representation ID: 95204

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Edward Wilson

The words may "fascinate the fools" but when this policy is followed we will lose all local control of local requirements.

Other

Representation ID: 95514

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Hatton Parish Council

Landowners and building contractors will press for the release of greenfield sites where their financial gain is maximised.

This pressure must be resisted in favour of a full and determined programme of urban regeneration for which there is yet little evidence.

No

Representation ID: 95579

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Stoford Developments Ltd

The policy refers to meeting employment needs that cannot be met in the administrative boundaries of an authority where the need arises, and that could be met in full or partly, within South Warwickshire. However the policy refers to this being on reserve sites. Where are these reserve sites for employment? They are not identifiable in this Plan. In addition, what is the trigger mechanism for releasing land to meet employment needs arising from an adjacent LPA - noting that the adopted Stratford Core Strategy included land allocated at Redditch Gateway to met the needs of Redditch from the outset.

No

Representation ID: 95630

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Amanda Dyhouse

The SWLP should be providing for housing needs of the local population.

No

Representation ID: 95668

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Clarke

Disgraceful that Warwickshire should have to consider other authorities' shortfalls

No

Representation ID: 95673

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: David Wilson Homes

Agent: Harris Lamb

Our view is that in the lead up to the preparation of the Pre-Submission SWLP the Councils should identify the extent of the HMA’s housing shortfall they intend to plan for, and invite comments from interested parties.