No

Representation ID: 101499

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Vincent Rollason

This development is not good for the area

Yes

Representation ID: 101576

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Alderley Holdings Trust

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, Bromsgrove District 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: 101583

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Crump

If the existing projections of up to 54,000 new dwellings are to be accommodated within the next 25 years, without consideration of any unmet need from Coventry or Greater Birmingham, then it is arguable that this massive figure should not be increased any further, given the serious implications involved for the undeveloped countryside in particular and for the continuing need to make the best use of arable land, especially for food production. Irreversible harm will be caused to the South Warwickshire environment if urbanising over development changes its intrinsic character and qualities and impacts upon the economic benefits of tourism.

No

Representation ID: 101585

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bellway Homes Ltd

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: 101784

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Catesby Estates

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.

Yes

Representation ID: 101790

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Catesby Estates

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: 101803

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Janet Neale

Over recent years there have been significant numbers of housing delivered across South Warwickshire to meet the need of other Authorities.
The revised standard methodology in the 2024 NPPF saw the requirement for South Warwickshire increase significantly whilst the neighbouring cities saw their requirements reduce.
The neighbouring areas need to fully utilise green belt release etc, before expecting Warwickshire to meet their need.

Other

Representation ID: 101831

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Grevayne Properties Limited

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 sites 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: 101834

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Sue Cole

The draft SWLP sets out in the HEDNA that recent data suggest a lower development figure is required rather than that imposed by Government and until there is greater certaintly regarding the quantum of unmet needs from neighbouring housing market areas beyond 2031 underpinned by accurate up to date figures then it is premature to allocate reserve housing sites up to 2050.

No

Representation ID: 101883

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Joseph Dimambro-Denson

We shouldn't be accommodating the overspill needs of surrounding areas, people need to live closer to where they work and live to ensure a sustainable future.
The only exception should be right on the boarder of these areas if it's really needed and if it means it's sustainable transport to these areas first.

Other

Representation ID: 101912

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Karen Rollason

Do we actually have any say on the need to absorb housing needs from Coventry?
Why should Warwick and Stratford districts have a vastly increased housing target AND be required to take on Coventry housing needs when the target for Coventry has actually decreased?

Other

Representation ID: 101961

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

The issue is not so much accommodating the growth needs from outside south Warwickshire, but that the requirement to accommodate the developments always seems to fall to the south of Leamington. Which is a considerable distance from the urban areas of the Black Country and Coventry. Greater consideration should be given to development closer to the urban areas to prevent further infrastructure pressures centring on J15/14/13 of the M40 and Europa Way/Banbury Road.

No

Representation ID: 101995

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Philip Alton

This policy is fundamentally flawed. Coventry has an approved policy of restricting development to brownfield sites only. Birmingham is 25 miles away and is a major conurbation with significant brownfield site availability. This policy effectively says that local residents can have their environment damaged, green belt destroyed, strain placed on local roads and services for the benefit of councils who have taken planning decisions for the benefit of their own areas. This would be a shocking abuse - presumably driven by the prospect of CIL payments.

Other

Representation ID: 101999

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Barwood Land

Agent: Savills (UK) Ltd

The December 2024 revised NPPF is clear that the plan-making authority must plan for a scale of growth accommodating their own local housing need as defined by the Standard Method and, where appropriate, some or all of the local housing need of the neighbouring authorities if those needs cannot be accommodated within their respective authority areas. In particular see paragraphs 24, 27, 36 and 62. If an unmet need from a neighbouring authority exists, t is a responsibility of the plan-making authority to engage through the duty to cooperate to determine where that need is to be accommodated.

The SWLP acknowledges a degree of uncertainty regarding unmet need from neighbouring authorities. The new NPPF paragraph 28 is clear that statements of common ground should be produced during the plan-making process. If there is still uncertainty at the time of the Regulation 19 production, it is therefore incumbent upon the authorities to come to an evidenced judgement and to uplift the housing land supply to reflect those needs.

We see no need to designate 'reserve sites' separately to other allocations. It would fit better with the NPPF to simply uplift the housing requirement and allocate sufficient land.

Yes

Representation ID: 102085

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: BDW Trading Limited

Agent: Knight Frank LLP

SWLP considers the Coventry and Warwickshire HMA and the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA and understands that these authorities will need to assess the overall need over a longer period of time beyond 2031. It is acknowledged that the new standard method led to increases in housing needs in the Black Country with significant evident shortfalls. Whilst it is anticipated that Birmingham City will need to contribute to neighbouring unmet needs, the SWLP will need to provide some contributions in light of the cross-boundary links in relation to a variety of uses including employment, industrial, leisure and housing.

Yes

Representation ID: 102104

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: IM Land 1 Limited

Agent: Turley

Land support the need for the Draft Plan to respond positively to the identification of unmet housing need arising from the GBBCHMA. Any sites identified to meet any needs arising from nearby housing market areas should follow the spatial strategy, and accordingly be in the most sustainable locations, such as the land off Rumbush Lane. The site forms part of a potential wider development opportunity, comprising land in both Stratford-on-Avon and Solihull.

Other

Representation ID: 102158

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Hallam Land

Agent: LRM Planning

NPPF §11 requires that a Local Plan’s strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas, unless there are reasons why this cannot be achieved. Unmet need will continue to exist and this could well need to be accommodated in the Stratford-on-Avon part of the Plan area.
It will be important that this is an identified part of the strategic housing requirement; it should be in addition to the plan areas’ own housing need.

Other

Representation ID: 102213

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land

Agent: Turley

Comments relating to GBBCHMA and CWHMA

No

Representation ID: 102262

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Holly Chenu

I object to the approach described here - Lapworth cannot accomodate housing needs for those outside the county and the transport infrastructure is not fit for purpose already and certainly could not absorb hundreds or thousands more cars daily

No

Representation ID: 102301

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jenny Bevan

Needs arising from outside South Warwickshire should be met as geographically close to the need as possible. The 2017 Local Plan used land in south Leamington to meet this need which has put the infrastructure in this area under significant strain. The motorway junctions and road network is at capacity and no more development around Bishop's Tachbrook should take place until junction improvements have been put in place for Mallory Road/Banbury Road, Oakley Wood Road/Banbury Road, Oakley Wood Road/Harbury Lane and B4087/Banbury Road.

No

Representation ID: 102303

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Niall Shimmin

Overspill should be prioritised as close to the overspilling district as possible so increased demand of local services and infrastructure can be shared.

Yes

Representation ID: 102313

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough

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.

Other

Representation ID: 102452

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Hill Residential

Agent: Turley

Hill Residential has no objections in principle to the approach advocated by Draft Policy Direction 4.

Yes

Representation ID: 102532

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Norrie

The evidence-based approach seems appropriate.

No

Representation ID: 102533

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Penelope Beswick

South Warwickshire should not be addressing the unmet needs of Greater Birmingham and the Black Country at any time.

No

Representation ID: 102560

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Diana Taulbut

It's insane to suggest we are obligated to release reserve land (which is likely to be more precious) to meet a housing shortfall from over 40 miles away. That stretches the definition of "neighbouring" beyond the limit. So for instance, are the people of Wolverhampton who can't buy a house where they work wanting to live new houses in a S Warks village (built for their need) which they won't be able to afford? I'm sure we are supposed to believe that the overall effect is a shuffling across the region: housing has to be appropriate in place and price.

No

Representation ID: 102651

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Phoebe Withnall

Draft Policy Direction 4 raises serious concerns about South Warwickshire being used to accommodate housing needs from outside its boundaries, particularly when it is already under pressure from its own growth targets. The policy suggests that land could be released to meet shortfalls elsewhere, but this risks shifting the burden of overdevelopment onto areas that may not have the infrastructure, transport links, or environmental capacity to absorb it. There is no clear limit on how much additional housing South Warwickshire might be expected to take, and it is unclear whether local communities will have any real say in the process.

No

Representation ID: 102778

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: The Ragley Estate

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.

Other

Representation ID: 102781

Received: 07/03/2025

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.

Yes

Representation ID: 102952

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bloor Homes

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.