No

Representation ID: 85962

Received: 10/01/2025

Respondent: Graham Ball

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) allows Green Belt boundaries to be altered when exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified. It seems 5 of the 12 proposed new settlements are on West Midlands greenbelt. 5 new settlements are not "exceptional". Moreover, West Midlands greenbelt makes up less than 5/12ths of the South Warwickshire so the number of new settlements proposed per acre of greenbelt land is greater than the number of settlements proposed per acre of non-greenbelt land, again implying new settlements are not "exceptional". In fact, both these points imply show that the council is ignoring greenbelt policy.

No

Representation ID: 85997

Received: 11/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sian Corrie

Green Belt is sacrosanct, small settlements 'washed-over' by Green Belt need to be preserved. It is fundamental to preserve the Green Belt to prevent urban sprawl. Any changes to Green Belt should only be allowed following local public consultation.

Other

Representation ID: 86026

Received: 11/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Oliver Jacobs

Agreed to outlined approach, bit this does not appear to have been considered in all proposed sites eg BW site 673

No

Representation ID: 86037

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Dr Jean-Pierre Laake

No to building on SG18 and greenbelt land:
1. Previous planning applications in SG18 have not been supported by councillors.
2. High land of SG18 overlooks Bishopton, Shottery Conservation Area and the Racecourse and will irreparably damage natural surrouding views
3. SG18 is valued as green leisure space by existing residents
4. SG18 is too many miles from town centre to promote active transport
5. SG18 is segregated from town by a46 and the western relief road
6. There are better brownfield sites closer to the town centre including disused poor quality architectural retail space and SG19

Yes

Representation ID: 86060

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Sandy McCaskie

N/A

No

Representation ID: 86090

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Clive Corrie

The Green Belt must at all cost be retained unless there are pressing loca needs and the scale and type of development is agreed at a local level.

No

Representation ID: 86187

Received: 14/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Freeman

Green Belt land was protected for a very good reason and it should remain safe and it will be lost forever just to line the pockets of property developers. WHy are you not exploring existing brown belt land to build on rather than rip up swathes of beautiful countryside?

Yes

Representation ID: 86329

Received: 21/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Ashcroft

The building of new settlements in the greenbelt should be avoided wherever possible, providing an important purpose to preventing inappropriate development. Once built upon it will be lost forever and allow future development on the back of it changing the whole character of the area.
Also, in considering development in the greenbelt , the feasibility of infrastructure should be considered and whether that has an impact on the wider greenbelt in facilitating development.
Finally, the feasibility of the development of Wood End station should be fully considered given the current access and availability of land surrounding it for expansion

Other

Representation ID: 86404

Received: 23/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sheila Chennells

Please do not build on our green belt with the number of houses you propose
Consider removing a large number looking at your proposals above. Keep our Green belt in Kenilworth

No

Representation ID: 86450

Received: 25/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carole Johnson

Further development proposals will wash over villages such as Hampton Magna, Hatton Park and Hatton. They will no longer be villages but an urban area of Warwick and also Leamington Spa.

Other

Representation ID: 86524

Received: 27/01/2025

Respondent: Mr justin kerridge

sensible idea but....
this should be done with close cooperation with parish councils and communities. not a top down directive

Yes

Representation ID: 86589

Received: 28/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Bridgewater

The Green Belt is important as an initial consideration. However, it is not sacrosanct and sustainable transport and low carbon development should take a high priority.

No

Representation ID: 86779

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Mr russell gillott

Green belt should also be considered protected with respect to nature, wildlife and habitats that support biodiversity. Not just protecting against urban sprawl!

No

Representation ID: 86901

Received: 31/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Arthur Hogan-Fleming

There is already a significant flooding problem. Green belt must be left as green belt. No more development

No

Representation ID: 87007

Received: 02/02/2025

Respondent: S Gardner

We need to resist national policies that erode green belt land and green corridors, Warwickshire is a beautiful county. You need to designate more land as protected land, and, honour green belt provisions, HS2 has already significantly impaired this,

Other

Representation ID: 87052

Received: 03/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Judith Corless

With the growth in population and the amount of houses that need to be built, some building in the green belt should be allowed.

No

Representation ID: 87168

Received: 05/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Bryan Hay

Green Belt should be considered sacrosanct.

No

Representation ID: 87194

Received: 06/02/2025

Respondent: Mr R M Boorman

Proposals are set out that build on farm land. We have seem hugely un popular development of solar farms on viable farm land already and it is clear these developments are visually intrusive and despite local opinion in favour of rejection, have been passed. This is prime agricultural land which should not be lost to building development. We need to preserve some agricultural land to grow the crops for now and future generations. It is also beautiful green belt countryside with a rich variety of plant and animal species.

Other

Representation ID: 87241

Received: 07/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Christopher Howarth

Green Belt should be maintained to help with wildlife , nature and general wellbeing in the communities.

Other

Representation ID: 87250

Received: 07/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Katrin Gilbert

Green belt land will disappear and towns and villages will be amalgamted into bigger urban areas when alternative sites and more creative ways of building should be considered.

Yes

Representation ID: 87296

Received: 08/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Hewitt

We need housing and lots of it. Time for a post WW2 type housing programme to provide homes for the young people who need them. Get the houses built.

Yes

Representation ID: 87379

Received: 08/02/2025

Respondent: Cllr Andrew Day

Good idea and sensible policy

No

Representation ID: 87562

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: Michaelina Jakala

No I do not support - there will be other ways that these policies will ensure the green belt will be 'washed over' or dismantled.

No

Representation ID: 87563

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: mrs susan morris

As different types of green belt land are included only low grade land should be used to build houses if no other land is available

Yes

Representation ID: 87658

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Enness

I support the identification of new green belt - the current definition makes no sense to me, as many local towns are sprawling in size, making lifeless places with no boundaries. There is not enough investment in higher density, more space-efficient housing in the town centers, where people could live and work without needing cars to drive everywhere.

Other

Representation ID: 87669

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jo Lancashire

I want to uphold the importance of Green Belt land. For a very long time Warwick DC has upheld all planning regulations regarding Green Belt building or extending to a very high degree. It seems to completely go against the appeal that rural Green Belt locations hold to disregard the allocation completely. I would counter that the density is the most crucial and most impactful factor here. If you were to force a VERY low density of housing on former green belt land, this would be much more in keeping with the location.

Yes

Representation ID: 87714

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mr justin kerridge

yes

Other

Representation ID: 87735

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Kim James

1. SWLP must fully reflect the significant changes introduced in the 2024 NPPF, particularly the new concept of "Grey Belt" land.
2. While the reclassification of certain Green Belt land may provide flexibility for development, it is essential that this does not lead to an automatic presumption in favour of development.
3. SWLP must continue to uphold the fundamental principles of Green Belt policy—preventing urban sprawl, protecting the countryside, and encouraging regeneration of brownfield sites within urban areas first.
4. SWLP to direct growth to the most sustainable locations while maintaining the integrity of the wider Green Belt.

No

Representation ID: 87775

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Samuel Sharples

Greenbelt should be left alone and not changed in terms of classification to enable people to build houses

No

Representation ID: 87783

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Katarzyna Wielis

Greenbelt should be left alone and not changed in terms of classification to enable people to build houses