No

Representation ID: 100261

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Catherine Mitchley

The scale of the greenbelt proposals cannot be justified. (eg Bearley and Henley) What 'exceptional circumstances' would support forcing inappropriate expansion on rural villages. Priority should be using brown/greyfield sites; should target development of land banked land particularly when not developed, an additional tax could be levied on land purchased and not built on. Living above the shop, converting unused commercial/office/retail property to become homes makes sense within existing communities.
Farmland will be lost; wildlife undermined/destroyed forever/inevitable increased flooding risk. Infrastructure swamped; Increased traffic will overwhelm local areas and cause gridlock to neighbouring towns.

No

Representation ID: 100272

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

Greenbelt land should not be considered for development when there is brownfield land available for development. The greenbelt should be protected to prevent uncontrolled urban sprawl. The Clopton Quarter part of SG18 should be protected against development to meet the stated principles in the SWLP of "A biodiverse and environmentally resilient South Warwickshire" and "A beautiful South Warwickshire".

Other

Representation ID: 100335

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Carter

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.

Other

Representation ID: 100412

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Aimee Carter

There is no need to build on the Green Belt when better alternatives exist. Even if all brownfield sites are used, there are still enough non-Green Belt areas available to meet housing demand.
Any review of Green Belt land must carefully consider its value—not just in preventing urban sprawl but also in stopping Kenilworth from expanding unchecked into the countryside, closing gaps between villages, and protecting the openness, biodiversity, and character of the landscape.
I strongly oppose any development on Green Belt land—once it’s gone, it’s gone forever.

No

Representation ID: 100430

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr peter spreadbury

The Green Belt protects those with the good fortune to live in the Green Belt. Our need for housing can not be entirely stifled by the need to protect the Green Belt. The strategy however must be to restrict large scale developments in rural areas where there are large green spaces, indigenous nature, rain-soak away, dark skies etc. Development should 100% be in Brown Field sites, redevelopment of obsolete housing, In-Fill and areas adjacent to existing infrastructure.

No

Representation ID: 100482

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Burgess

Inclusion of Green Belt areas such as SG06 results from a flawed selection process. The presented options are led by developer and landowner submissions. They are neither the best options for the area nor what the public would choose. There will be error margins of at least 10% to 25% in the assessments of carbon impacts over 20 to 30 years so it makes no sense to rank SGLs on the basis of trivial differences of 1% or less. Even the largest variance (7.5%) will be significantly less than the margin of error. The five purposes of Green Belt apply to the Green Belt areas selected as SGLs, and particularly SG06. There are no exceptional circumstances put forward to justify release. There is enough capacity in non-Green Belt sites to meet housing requirements.

North of Leamington, and particularly SG06, has no local facilities and could not meet the 20-minute neighbourhood objective. Sustainable transport links and areas of employment are on the opposite side of Leamington over the river. The proposal would therefore create traffic and congestion through Leamington. Thousands of houses would have a detrimental effect on the Northumberland Road conservation area through traffic, congestion and pollution.

No

Representation ID: 100602

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Residents Concerned for Kenilworth South

The plan provides sufficient sustainable non-green belt sites to meet the remaining housing need without the need to use any green belt land. Therefore the policy should be to retain all green belt within South Warwickshire and ensure that all new housing is built without recourse to green belt land.

No

Representation ID: 100648

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Pam Byrne

Green belt should not be released for development.

Other

Representation ID: 100688

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Gladman Developments

It is inevitable that to meet the councils housing and employment requirements across the plan period, there will have to be Green Belt release across South Warwickshire, especially in Warwick. However, it is pertinent to note that there are a considerable number of both housing and employment sites which are available outside of the Green Belt across the Stratford-on-Avon district which can accommodate housing and employment growth and support the continued vitality and viability of existing settlements.

The 24 potential Strategic Growth Locations include a mix of Green Belt and non-Green Belt locations. Similarly, the 12 new settlement locations include a mixture of Green Belt and non-Green Belt locations. It is important to recognise that Green Belt is a policy and not an environmental constraint. The sustainability appraisal of the location of development should be policy off and then green belt consideration weights into the balance when making policy choices.

Though Gladman are not opposed to Green Belt release when required, these non-Green Belt sites should be considered fully before Green Belt release is considered. A staged approach to Green Belt release on the edge of sustainable locations would be beneficial, rather than large swathes of Green Belt release to allow for new locations for growth.

Other

Representation ID: 100721

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Catherine Hogarth

Always use Brownfield sites first.

No

Representation ID: 100733

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Beausale, Hasely, Honiley & Wroxall Parish Council

This needs the strongest protection – the Green Belt is not there to be industrialised, it is there to serve a number of valuable functions for people, communities and the environment.
The SWLP will not achieve its objectives if it builds on greenbelt land.

No

Representation ID: 100759

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Pamela Kelt

I believe HS2 is having a detrimental effect to the area and cannot be dismissed. It has destroyed trees and hedges, a natural habitat for wildlife. The building work has wrecked roads and filled the air with dust. Our green belt is vital for everyone. I see this report as bending the accepted definitions to build more homes cheaply to make money, rather than improving the county.

No

Representation ID: 100805

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr guy evans

Spread the development out in highly sustainable locations throughout the green belt. Where existing infrastructure exists this will limit the impact And limit the Need of a large New settlement development .

No

Representation ID: 100881

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Rowington Landowner Consortium

Agent: Knight Frank LLP

The Stage 1 GBR identified the need for a subsequent Stage 2 GBR to perform detailed, site-specific assessments. This upcoming review will need to consider the 2024 NPPF's definition of "grey belt". Local policies concerning the Green Belt should align with NPPF provisions, supporting the hierarchical prioritisation of PDL and grey belt when assessing potential site allocations and Green Belt boundary adjustments with regard to locational sustainability.

The initial GBR assessed the parcels forming the new settlement on land south of Kingswood, finding these made moderate to weak contribution to three of the purposes, therefore considered to be grey belt.

No

Representation ID: 100918

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Aldridge

Why destroy precious countryside when there are many city / brown sites available.

No

Representation ID: 100939

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: The Princethorpe Foundation

Agent: Sworders

It will clearly be necessary to release land from the Green Belt in order to accommodate the identified housing need, especially around Kenilworth. Regard needs to be had to the revised NPPF and recent Green Belt guidance, with priority given to previously developed land, then grey belt land, before considering other Green Belt land. The plan is therefore not sound and the Green Belt review should be updated. A balance needs to be struck between Green Belt protection, and the need to allocate sites which lie in the most sustainable locations, adjacent to existing towns.

No

Representation ID: 100959

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stuart Foreman

Green belt land should only be considered for development when no suitable alternatives outside the green belt are available. Even then, priority should be given to "grey belt" areas, which are less valuable in terms of green belt functions. Only after exploring all non-green belt options should the Council consider releasing green belt land. When doing so, it must focus on areas where development would have the least impact on the key objectives of green belt policy, as outlined in the NPPF. This approach helps balance development needs while protecting the integrity of the green belt.

Yes

Representation ID: 100999

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mac Mic Group

Agent: Marrons

Mac Mic Group agree there are exceptional circumstances to warrant the release of Green Belt land, including significant housing need that can not reasonably bet met all in sustainable locations outside of the Green Belt. The NPPF is now crystal clear that exceptional circumstances include instances where the homes needed cannot be met through other means (para. 146)..

Other

Representation ID: 101016

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs june Goldsmith

Green Belt needs to be preserved as a priority under all circumstances.
Brown land should be used before any Green Belt.
A 15 year plan will be more appropriate than a 25 year plan. Highly likely that in 15 years circumstances and peoples habits may change and new areas of Brown land will become available.
Use of Green Belt for outdoor exercise and leisure is very important to the physical and mental health of the population. Therefore, each Green belt site, if it must be considered, should be carefully assessed as to how it meets these important purposes.

Other

Representation ID: 101037

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr guy evans

The approach to put the houses on Greenbelt and none Greenbelt locations utilising brownfield is a good idea And to use highly sustainable locations is a good idea. But I don't think the new settlement idea is bad idea. it should be more spread out this will result in faster Delivery of housing 2. Cheaper to develop. 3.Will bring more economic benefits to a wider area. 4. Boost the local economy. Smaller developers will be able to contribute to build the necessary housing instead of
Only larger developers.

Other

Representation ID: 101187

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Adrian Summers on behalf of the Summers Family

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

The consultation has been overtaken by events with the advent of the "Grey Belt" in the December 2024 NPPF and should be rerun at a later date taking account of responses. A rerun would enable, for example, the currently missing detailed policy wording to be added.

Notwithstanding, it is clear that an analysis of the purposes of Green Belt for the land identified at Claybank Farm for potential development would not contribute strongly to purposes a), b) and d) of Green Belt, and thereby would appear to constitute “Grey Belt” land.

Other

Representation ID: 101206

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ira Goldsmith

Green belt needs to be preserved under any circumstances in accordance with the 5 key purposes of national policy. Prevent merger of boundaries, urban sprawl, traffic congestion, pollution, preserve identities of historic areas.
A SIXTH key purpose of the Green Belt area should be reducing risk and harm to the communities of South Warwickshire from flooding due to global warming and climate change. Hence, identify, develop, designate and preserve, "water retention Green Belt areas" like Hatton.
A 15 year plan is recommended over a 25 year plan as circumstances and peoples habits may change allowing release of more brown land.

Other

Representation ID: 101247

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anne Teed

The green belt should not be developed and any residential building on green belt should be under extremely, exceptional circumstances. The green belt between Kenilworth and Warwick/Leek Wotton should be there to prevent closing the gap between these residential areas. This draft policy does not seem to highlight the importance of the green belt enough. Regeneration of brownfield sites is necessary and important, as is improving existing infrastructure. Non-green belt sites can meet the housing need without using green belt sites. We need to protect productive agricultural land and the biodiversity in the landscape that any green belt area offers.

No

Representation ID: 101267

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Bart Slob

I do not agree with Draft Policy Direction 7. The policy suggests Green Belt release may be justified, but exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated. Areas like SG04 (South of Kenilworth) should be removed, as they fail sustainability tests and threaten historic landscapes. The sequential approach is unclear, and brownfield sites must be prioritised first before considering Green Belt land. Weak protections risk setting a precedent for incremental Green Belt loss, leading to urban sprawl. The policy must commit to preserving the Green Belt, ensure development is truly necessary, and prioritise brownfield regeneration before release.

Yes

Representation ID: 101303

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Hallam Land

Agent: Marrons

Hallam Land consider there are clear sustainability benefits to utilising Green Belt land for development as opposed to channelling all development to non-Green Belt locations. This is particularly the case in so far as land south of Stoneleigh Road (Site ID 103).

Yes

Representation ID: 101414

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mac Mic Group

Agent: Marrons

The Site [RefID 169] is the most accessible side of the village to the rail station (unlike 53 and 761), is well contained without long distances views (unlike 514 & 649) and does not make a contribution to Green Belt purposes (unlike 88 & 205), does extend the village envelope north beyond Rising Lane (unlike 235).

Other

Representation ID: 101427

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Alderley Holdings Trust

Agent: Mr Jack Barnes

A Green Belt Report is submitted alongside these representations which sets out the case for the release of the Trust’s sites from the Green Belt.

Yes

Representation ID: 101452

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Zoe Leventhal

Yes, the sequential approach and exceptional circumstances test must be strictly applied. Important in a small market town such as Kenilworth where a significant amount of its GB was lost in the last local plan period. Releasing sites SG01 and SG04 would continue this and have significant impacts on Kenilworth’s sense of place with the risk that it will in time be absorbed into Coventry and merge with the village of Leek Wootton. Both of these scenarios are undesirable. Kenilworth has already increased by 20% in size in the last plan period, combined with major impacts of HS2.

No

Representation ID: 101519

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Vincent Rollason

This is not good for the area

No

Representation ID: 101820

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Clive Henderson

I am not convinced that the plan has identified and optimised the use of existing Brown Field land or that, considering the future changes in the usage of existing industrial land which arise during the life of the plan, that adequate monitoring to ensure that any brownfield space coming available from such change is prioritised for development in preference to any site which reduces Green Belt land.