No

Representation ID: 97874

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stan Copley

I'm completely against Accommodating Growth Needs Arising from Outside South Warwickshire. This will lead to overdevelopment of existing small and medium communities who are being saddled with expanding for South Warwickshire Growth Needs already. This will lead to greatly increased and unnecessary commuter traffic and urban sprawl. No amount of sweet talking and promises will make the reality of this and better. Birmingham and the Black Country need to sort their own issues out.

No

Representation ID: 98237

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Woodward

N/a

No

Representation ID: 98243

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Woodward

N/a

No

Representation ID: 98288

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Barry Elkington

Both Birmingham and Coventry have had their housing requirements reduced despite having a large number of Brownfield sites and being the areas where most jobs are located. There is an overstatement of the housing requirements for Coventry so South Warwickshire should resist any attempts to provide for them. Indeed, the policy whould work in reverse and they take on some of the South Warwickshire requirements.

Other

Representation ID: 98325

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Catesby Estates

Agent: Mr Will Whitelock

We support the recognition that there may be a need to look to accommodate ‘unmet need’ from the Coventry and Warwickshire Housing Market Area (HMA) and the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA. However, there is no detail to comment on at this stage.

No

Representation ID: 98356

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Daine Davis

South Warwickshire is required to accomodate more than enough new housing without taking additional overflow from adjacent urban areas

No

Representation ID: 98405

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Holly Farm Business Park

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

There is a need for greater certainty and quantification on meeting cross-boundary needs. The suggestion in the Policy Direction for the capacity to be identified on reserve site released only when supply in the source area falls below 5 years is unworkable. Also, this forgets that some of the requirement might be for employment development. The strategic proximity of Holly Farm Business Park to the conurbation and Coventry is well-placed to help meet any such shortfall.

Other

Representation ID: 98461

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Philip Sykes

This can only make sense if any proposed accommodation within Stratford on Avon District is on the Northern/North-Western side of the District boundary. To do otherwise would meet with catastrophic commute difficulties for both work and education.

No

Representation ID: 98483

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lucy Flynn

Agent: Stansgate Planning

The National Planning Policy Framework states, at paragraph 11b), that strategic policies should provide for the objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas. This need for cross boundary provision is reiterated in Framework paragraph 36 a). As drafted, Policy Direction 4 does not go far enough towards meeting the needs of the Greater Birmingham and Coventry areas. Some cross boundary requirements are
already acknowledged yet the SWLP does not currently propose to make any allocations to meet those needs from the outset and should be amended to do so, reflecting the latest information available.
That notwithstanding it remains appropriate for the SWLP to allocate additional sites which can be released if there is a shortfall against the Districts’ own requirements or needs arising from adjacent areas. A policy of reserve sites must be clearly set out in the SWLP and not left to a separate document, to be adopted at a later date.

Yes

Representation ID: 98672

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: X2 New Settlement Consortium

Agent: Mr Jack Barnes

It is imperative that the SWLP adequately considers accommodating unmet housing needs arising from outside of South Warwickshire. There are significant unmet needs arising from the GBBCHMA which require attention, and potential unmet needs arising from Coventry which should be taken account of accordingly. There is also potential for unmet needs arising from Cotswold District, Redditch Borough and Solihull Metropolitan Borough which should be considered. Failure to do so would render the SWLP not positively prepared nor effective and thus unsound in line with Paragraph 36 a) and c) of the NPPF.

Yes

Representation ID: 98714

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Makestone Strategic Land - Hampton Lucy

Agent: Mr Jack Barnes

It is imperative that the SWLP adequately considers accommodating unmet housing needs arising from outside of South Warwickshire. There are significant unmet needs arising from the GBBCHMA which require attention, and potential unmet needs arising from Coventry which should be taken account of accordingly. There is also potential for unmet needs arising from Cotswold District, Redditch Borough and Solihull Metropolitan Borough which should be considered. Failure to do so would render the SWLP not positively prepared nor effective and thus unsound in line with Paragraph 36 a) and c) of the NPPF.

No

Representation ID: 98802

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Old Milverton and Blackdown Parish Council

OMBJPC is aware that South Warwickshire is bounded by Coventry and Redditch and there may be unmet needs from those areas than have to be accommodated. However, it is clear from the previous Inspector’s Report (2017) that addressed this matter, development to meet the unmet needs of Coventry will need to be located adjoining Coventry, rather than the edge of Leamington. The same principle would apply to Redditch.
In particular, land in the West Midlands Greenbelt should not be used to accommodate housing need from other areas as this would defeat the purpose of the West Midlands Greenbelt.

No

Representation ID: 98807

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Hayward Developments Ltd

Agent: Stansgate Planning

RESPONSE TO SWLP PREFERRED OPTIONS SUBMISSION
HAYWARD DEVELOPMENTS LTD
MARCH 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 4- Accommodating Growth
Needs Arising from Outside South Warwickshire?
The National Planning Policy Framework states, at paragraph 11b), that strategic policies should
provide for the objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that
cannot be met within neighbouring areas. This need for cross boundary provision is reiterated in
Framework paragraph 36 a). As drafted, Policy Direction 4 does not go far enough towards meeting
the needs of the Greater Birmingham and Coventry areas. Some cross boundary requirements are
already acknowledged yet the SWLP does not currently propose to make any allocations to meet
those needs from the outset and should be amended to do so, reflecting the latest information
available.
That notwithstanding it remains appropriate for the SWLP to allocate additional sites which can be
released if there is a shortfall against the Districts’ own requirements or needs arising from adjacent
areas. A policy of reserve sites must be clearly set out in the SWLP and not left to a separate
document, to be adopted at a later date.

No

Representation ID: 98962

Received: 06/03/2025

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

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

There is a need for greater certainty and quantification on meeting cross-boundary needs. The suggestion in the Policy Direction for the capacity to be identified on reserve site released only when supply in the source area falls below 5 years is unworkable. Also, this forgets that some of the requirement might be for other types of development.

Other

Representation ID: 98977

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline West

Only if they can be accomodated on brownfield sites. Should not take land in South Warwickshire out of agricultural production for needs from outside South Warwickshire.

Energy production by solar PV is another demand currently met by loss of agricultural land. All new sites must be designed and built to have PV on ALL roofs (only exceptions being if obscured by trees with TPOs or pre-existing tall buildings to be retained in the development) and all car parks must be covered with solar panels.

No

Representation ID: 98985

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: MPTL

Agent: Harris Lamb

No, Draft Policy Direction 4 refers to housing needs only. There is no reference to the fact that South Warwickshire may be required to provide employment land to support the growth of the Coventry and Warwickshire HMA or the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA

Yes

Representation ID: 99028

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: J & E Evans Properties Limited

Agent: Marrons

It is imperative that the SWLP adequately considers accommodating unmet housing needs arising from outside of South Warwickshire. There are significant unmet needs arising from the GBBCHMA which require attention, and potential unmet needs arising from Coventry which should be taken account of accordingly. There is also potential for unmet needs arising from Cotswold District, Redditch Borough and Solihull Metropolitan Borough which should be considered. Failure to do so would render the SWLP not positively prepared nor effective and thus unsound in line with Paragraph 36 a) and c) of the NPPF.

No

Representation ID: 99042

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Wyatt

It is clear that both Coventry and Birmingham have vacant capacity for development and therefore this MUST be fully realised before any consideration for accommodating them. Also any such accommodation must be hand in hand with greatly improved transport links to those areas. The current arrangements are grossly inadequate.

No

Representation ID: 99056

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Keep Hatton Station Rural

As B1 is in green belt land and Ancient Arden, the area should be doubly protected from urban sprawl. There is the potential for towns to begin to merge and that would contribute to the nature of the separation of settlements.

Yes

Representation ID: 99068

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Nurton Developments

Agent: Chave Planning

Nurton Developments Ltd (NDL) agrees with the approach to accommodating growth needs arising outside South Warwickshire.

Yes

Representation ID: 99081

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Nurton Developments (Loes Farm) Ltd

Agent: Chave Planning

Nurton Developments Ltd (NDL) agrees with the approach to accommodating growth needs arising outside South Warwickshire.

Yes

Representation ID: 99098

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Nurton Developments (Lapworth) Ltd

Agent: Chave Planning

Nurton Developments Ltd (NDL) agrees with the approach to accommodating growth needs arising outside South Warwickshire.

No

Representation ID: 99254

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr James Kennedy

Any approach to accommodate growth needs arising outside South Warwickshire should be rigorously challenged. In the previous local plan we took on growth from Coventry that was based on figures of demand that have now proved to be incorrect.

No

Representation ID: 99274

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land - Wellesbourne

We are concerned with the lack of detail and references within the draft policy.

Other

Representation ID: 99283

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

I agree that SWLP should accommodate shortfall from Coventry and Birmingham but only if it is proved that all available sites have been used in these places. The current plan has reduced the housing allocation for Coventry by approx. one third and loaded the hosing onto South Warwickshire. This implies there are still brownfield sites in Coventry that will be unused.

No

Representation ID: 99287

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Rawlings

South Warwickshire should not accommodate ANY growth needs that arise from outside the area.

Other

Representation ID: 99295

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Summers Holdings Ltd

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

There is a need for greater certainty and quantification on meeting cross-boundary needs. The suggestion in the Policy Direction for the capacity to be identified on reserve site released only when supply in the source area falls below 5 years is unworkable. Also, this forgets that some of the requirement might be for other types of development.

No

Representation ID: 99444

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Diane Wilson

See previous comments

No

Representation ID: 99532

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jean Bull

South Warwickshire should not be used for this shortfall from outside of the area.

Other

Representation ID: 99557

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Gillian Padgham

While generally supporting the policy, in communities like Southam where the average house price is more than ten times the average income there is a concern that this policy could lead to further difficulties for local people being able to afford to live in their home community. Somehow the Plan needs to address this concern.