No

Representation ID: 98815

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Old Milverton and Blackdown Parish Council

Our understanding is that Policy Direction 7 is flawed due to its reliance on Paragraph 142 of the old NPPF. This provided scope for authorities to take into account “the need to promote sustainable patterns of development”. It was removed in July 2024.
The current NPPF makes no provision for sustainability being the determining factor for whether green belt land can be used over non-green belt land. The legacy policy (old paragraph 142) is present in the Spatial Growth Strategy and in the Draft Policy Direction 7. It will therefore misleadingly inform the preferred option unless corrective action is taken.

No

Representation ID: 98902

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Susan Ducker

Green belt land should remain protected - it is important for environmental ecological reasons and once taken by planners for development it will never be replaced

No

Representation ID: 98912

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Philip Cullinane

The policy lacks clarity, especially regarding the "grey belt" definition and the incomplete green belt review. It opposes green belt development unless exceptional circumstances are proven, emphasizing its role in limiting urban sprawl, particularly between Coventry, Kenilworth, and Leek Wootton. Weakening green belt protections to tackle the housing crisis is a short-sighted approach, likely resulting in high-value homes rather than affordable housing. The policy should focus on sustainable urban planning by regenerating brownfield sites and increasing housing density near existing infrastructure. This would address housing needs without compromising green space or long-term environmental sustainability

No

Representation ID: 98979

Received: 06/03/2025

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

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

* The consultation has been overtaken by events in light of the December 2024 NPPF and should be rerun at a later date taking account of responses. This would also enable, for example, detailed policy wording to be added.
* Notwithstanding that, it is clear that an analysis of the purposes of Green Belt for the land identified on our clients' land east of Station Lane, Kingswood would not contribute strongly to purposes a), b) and d) of Green Belt and therefore its development would not be considered to be inappropriate.

No

Representation ID: 99001

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: MPTL

Agent: Harris Lamb

No, as drafted the policy does not properly reflect the most recent version of the Framework’s Green Belt guidance. The Framework introduces the concept of “Grey Belt” land. It actively encourages the development of Grey Belt land ahead of Green Belt land. This is not, however, reflected in the Draft Policy Direction 7. The Stage 2 Green Belt review referred to in the policy will also need to consider which sites constitute “Grey Belt” in order to inform the site selection process.

Yes

Representation ID: 99030

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: J & E Evans Properties Limited

Agent: Marrons

J & E Evans Properties consider there would be negative consequences for sustainable development if all development was channelled to locations outside the Green Belt, and in accordance with paragraph 148 of the NPPF, the need to promote sustainable patterns of development is paramount.

Draft-Policy-Direction-7 states “…if there are clear sustainability benefits to utilising one or more Green Belt locations, then this will form the basis of an argument that "exceptional circumstances" exist to justify releasing that land from the Green Belt”

J & E Evans Properties agree there are exceptional circumstances to warrant the release of Green Belt land.

No

Representation ID: 99046

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Onions

We are using too much green belt land already. There are hundreds of thousands of empty properties in the England. Get these occupied first.

No

Representation ID: 99093

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Wyatt

No! The establishment of the West Midlands Greenbelt was a fantastic creation strictly setting up an area in accordance with regulations. You CANNOT touch this jewel of policy and symbol of environment success.

No

Representation ID: 99219

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Keep Hatton Station Rural

There are no justifiable "exceptional circumstances" for removing green belt land, or building upon it, in B1/SG07.
Other non-greenbelt land exists.
B1/SG07
- can't be made sustainable in transport or infrastructure terms.
- does not have previously developed land.
- can check urban sprawl as expected of green belt.
- can protect the countryside in which it sits from encroachment
- can protect the nature of historic Warwick town
The green belt assessment has not properly addressed the green belt which is likely to be impacted by a proposed new settlement at B1/SG07
When it's gone, it's gone!

Other

Representation ID: 99229

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Coventry City Council and Coventry Airport Ltd

Agent: Mr Robert Barnes

The Regulation 18 document recognises that some Green Belt development is likely to be required. Draft Policy Direction 7 notes that, “if there are clear sustainability benefits to utilising one or more Green Belt locations, then this will form the basis of an argument that "exceptional circumstances" exist to justify releasing that land from the Green Belt.” It advocates a sequential approach to allocating growth, and identifies the need for further evidence around sustainability of locations, their Green Belt contribution, and impact on the wider Green Belt if released.

This approach is supported, on the basis that it is applied positively so that the notable resource of Green Belt land in South Warwickshire capable of sustainable development can be properly utilised. One significant example in this regard is Sustainable Growth Location SG03 which addresses Coventry Airport.

In NPPF terms this comprises previously developed land, that is, “Land which has been lawfully developed and is or was occupied by a permanent structure and any fixed surface infrastructure associated with it, including the curtilage of the developed land… It also includes land comprising large areas of fixed surface infrastructure such as large areas of hardstanding which have been lawfully developed.” The Councils’ Green Belt Review Stage 1 report concludes that the Airport makes a weak contribution overall to the Green Belt. As previously developed land enclosed on three sides by built development and the fourth side by a busy road this overall conclusion is correct and inescapable. In NPPF terms the Airport should be regarded as “Grey Belt”.

Noting that the Airport makes a weak contribution to the Green Belt and is largely enclosed by developed non-Green Belt land the impact on the wider Green Belt if released would be significantly limited. It presents as an anomalous finger of Green Belt land between heavily developed areas and road infrastructure. Planning permission has already been granted for its comprehensive redevelopment, and it forms an integral part of the wider Major Investment Site identified by the emerging Plan here. Its location immediately adjacent to the edge of Coventry and good integration with sustainable transport links on the southern side of the City, and location as part of the “Core Opportunity Area”, also contribute to its suitability and sustainability for development. There is a clear case to be made for releasing it from the Green Belt, and this should be pursued in the next version of the emerging Plan.

No

Representation ID: 99292

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Rawlings

There should not be any development on the Green Belt.

Other

Representation ID: 99305

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr James Kennedy

Unfortunately, this draft Policy Direction 7 is relatively vague as the government’s new grey belt definition is omitted and only the first stage of the Green Belt review has been included.
I agree with the opposition to development within the Green Belt expressed in the previous consultation, which means that the "exceptional circumstances" to justify such development would need to be truly exceptional. We believe that what is left of the Green Belt between Coventry and Kenilworth is particularly beneficial to the area and that we should make every effort to preserve it.

No

Representation ID: 99306

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Summers Holdings Ltd

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

The consultation itself appears to confirm that it has been overtaken by events and should be rerun at a later date taking account of responses, e.g. changes in Green Belt policy including the introduction of grey belt? This would enable, for example, detailed policy wording to be added.

Notwithstanding that, it is clear from the Councils’ own interpretation of Site 758 under the HELAA B that the site is Grey Belt and therefore its development would not be considered to be inappropriate, subject to its compliance with the Golden Rules, which the site could meet.

Yes

Representation ID: 99340

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

I agree with locating housing in Green Belt if it is sited along sustainable travel corridors.

Yes

Representation ID: 99450

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Diane Wilson

Protect green belt, farm land and all green spaces at all cost. To ensure the nature and heritage of the area is not lost.

No

Representation ID: 99468

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carolyn Haynes

Almost all the new potential sites are in green belt areas, so there is clearly no desire to save the green belt. It seems the only safe places are those that are known to flood.

No

Representation ID: 99482

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Steven Murray

SG20 - Ardens Grafton - any growth development around this area will not protect the open countryside and conservation area as it would coalesce with neighbouring villages ant not protect open spaces. Ardens Grafton contains Grade 2 listed buildings and is within a conservation area with views that would be impacted by growth development suggested. Environmental suitability, landscape impact on settlement character and non agricultural land growth would be a harmful incursion on the landscape and not make efficient use of the land around the small village and it is in an elevated area which is of high visual impact.

No

Representation ID: 99539

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Afolabi Okeshola

I believe that development in green belt areas should always be an absolute last resort. These areas not only preserve biodiversity but also increase our food security. In a time when we're concerned about the miles food travels from source to consumption, it's important to keep green belt areas. Making objections like this are the start of a very slippery and dangerous slope.

Other

Representation ID: 99547

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Duncan Taylor

There are plenty of non green belt alternatives. We don't need to develop green belt areas, once that starts there will be no end to it.

No

Representation ID: 99586

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jean Bull

Green belt should not be destroyed, it is needed.

No

Representation ID: 99591

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Loades

You should not be considering Green Belt land for development at all!!
South Wellesbourne is and the historic villages surrounding it are protected by Green Belt for a reason. Please re-think about even considering building on green belt land. There is no benefit to building on it. You are at risk of destroying the countryside for future generations.

Other

Representation ID: 99593

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Gillian Padgham

I would have liked to see a more extensive view of the Green Belt to allow greater levels of development near major population centres.

No

Representation ID: 99817

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Waller

There must be no building on the green belt as this is meant to be a protective buffer zone to protect our countryside. The green belt must be 100 per cent protected from new houses, otherwise it will be eroded very ten years, which is shocking

No

Representation ID: 99820

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Delve

Greenbelt needs to be proceed to present urban sprawl and stop villages and rural life being destroyed. Under the National planning policy framework (NPPF) 2024 (see paragraph 144) states development on green belt is only permitted where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced are justified.

No

Representation ID: 99822

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Steven Simpson

See previous comments regarding use of Green Belt and what is being defined as "Exceptional" by this consultation and many developers.
Exceptional can't just mean the least worst option. It should be based upon recent and applicable studies.

No

Representation ID: 99847

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Sabrina Hasnaoui

Housing needs can be met without using green belt land (GBL). Brownfield sites should be considered before GBL
GBL should only be used in extremely 'exceptional circumstances', in these cases its use should be highly evaluated and scrutinised, taking into consideration not only merging of settlements but also the quality of the GBL and the impact on environmental preservation and biodiversity.
Use of green belt land in Warwickshire will ultimately change this historical area and character of the beautiful Warwickshire landscape and countryside.
HS2 should be acknowledged and the impact this has already had on GBL considered.

No

Representation ID: 100162

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Ann Colley

What could be classed as 'exceptional circumstances' for an area to be released from being a green belt area? An allocated green belt are should remain as a green belt.

No

Representation ID: 100185

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anna Taylor

Green Belt land must remain protected whilst brownfield alternatives exist. These spaces act as a natural barrier to urban sprawl, preserving the character of local landscapes and preventing uncontrolled development. Instead, new settlements should be created in strategic locations to avoid putting undue pressure on existing infrastructure. The Clopton Quarter section of SG18, bordering Welcombe Hills, must be permanently safeguarded to align with South Warwickshire’s vision of a scenic and biodiverse environment. Allowing development in protected areas contradicts planning priorities and diminishes the region’s natural beauty, making it essential to focus on sustainable alternatives.

No

Representation ID: 100193

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Philip Wall

After making full use of previously developed land, non-Green Belt sites must be considered before any thought is given to building on protected Green Belt land.
There are enough sustainable non-Green Belt sites available to meet the remaining housing demand, meaning there is no justification for encroaching on Green Belt land.
Any Green Belt review must carefully assess the value of these sites—not just in preventing urban sprawl (e.g., between Kenilworth and Coventry) but also in stopping Kenilworth from expanding unchecked into the countryside, closing gaps between villages, and preserving the openness, landscape character, and biodiversity of these vital areas.

No

Representation ID: 100231

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Cooper

I am totally opposed to using Green Belt land. There is far too much flooding caused by the misuse of land, and we do not yet understand the impact Solar Farms will have on the environment in the coming years. We live in a small area in a small country. Greenbelt is too precious, once lost it is lost forever.