Yes

Representation ID: 92366

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Harbury Parish Council

yes we agree that there should be appropriate development in the green belt, especially where locations have good transport links

No

Representation ID: 92413

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Christine Slaughter

Green belt should not be considered when brown belt is available. It should be safeguarded to prevent urban sprawl and protect rural surroundings. The Clopton Quarter is part of SG18, next to the Welcombe Hills should be protected to meet South Warwickshire principles of "a beautiful South Warwickshire" and "a biodiverse and environmentally resilient South Warwickshire"

No

Representation ID: 92431

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Ted and Zbigniew Jasinski

This policy is critisised for being vague, lacking clarity on the new grey belt definition and only presenting the first stage of the green belt review. The policy opposes green belt development unless exceptional circumstances are proven, emphasising the green belt’s importance in limiting sprawl, especially between Coventry and Kenilworth. Weakening green belt protections is a short-sighted solution to the housing crisis, as it often leads to high-value homes instead of affordable housing. The focus should shift to sustainable, creative urban planning like regenerating brownfield sites and building higher-density housing near existing infrastructure.

No

Representation ID: 92449

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Stuart Alford

This approach is in direct contradiction to some preferred areas of land earmarked. Green Belt land should be protected, if not then we are on a slippery slope of urban sprawl. England is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the World so further sacrificing of green belt protection should be approached with more care, with environmental protection higher up the planning process

Only by absolute exception greenbelt should be developed and there must be strict and comprehensive measures to create more biodiversity and more natural habitat that is being lost, large housing developments simply will not do this.

Yes

Representation ID: 92476

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Nigel Briggs

The threshold for releasing green belt land must be seen as very high. Encroachment on green belt land has caused 'urban sprawl' across the land and is particularly damaging in areas such as South Warwickshire where the land still provides substantial welcome relief from the stresses of urban living.

Yes

Representation ID: 92521

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Fairburn

There aren't enough brown-field sites to achieve housing targets. This country has fetishised Green Belt, in spite of some of it being nothing special.

No

Representation ID: 92611

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Phillip Johnson

I cannot agree with 8,200 additional houses on 450 hectares of Green Belt. There are other non-Green Belt sites in South Warwickshire for a new Settlement. The Green Belt is important to protect the countryside from urban sprawl and retain the character of rural communities. It is important for health and wellbeing of residents, as well as the UK's food security. Many animals and birds rely on it. In particular, building on site B1 would be a death sentence for wildlife. Green Belt contributes significantly towards reducing and mitigating climate change.

NPPF Paragraph 147 confirms that Green Belt should not be developed if other options exist. The classification of Green Belt Land in the Plan and the technical evidence appears dubious, inconsistent and confusing. I suspect that consultants have been commissioned to give a non-balanced view. NPPF Paragraph 157 sets out increased affordable housing requirements of up to 50% where Green Belt is released. This and likely requirements for new Highways Infrastructure will make building on Green Belt unattractive and unviable for developers. Where they do decide to build they will pressure the Local Authority to relax the rules and build more profitable executive homes.

No

Representation ID: 92693

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Eileen Jasinski

The removal of green belt into grey belt lacks clarity and is in fact only at the first stage of the green belt review.
In order to utilise greenbelt land all elements of exceptional circumstances identified in the NPPF should be met, which currently are not.
Weakening the green belt protection is a short sighted solution to the housing needs and often leads to homes being of high value instead of affordable.
The focus should shift to regenerating brownfield sites to create a high density housing with the use of existing infrastructure

No

Representation ID: 92736

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Mervyn Longford

It is important to utilise all available brownfield land prior to the promotion of greenfield land.

No

Representation ID: 92780

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jon Cheek

All green belt area should be left as green belt area - as these were identified previously as green belt for a reason and that reason has not changed over the years I believe.

No

Representation ID: 92807

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carolyn Stacey

Brownfield sites should always be considered first- this is far more sustainable. Once greenbelt land is developed the environmental and social value is permanently lost. Greenbelt protection is important in maintaining South Warwickshires, character and heritage.

No

Representation ID: 92816

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr JAMES STEWART

I strongly disagree with Policy Direction 7. Green belt land should never be developed while brownfield sites remain available. Green belts must be safeguarded to prevent urban sprawl and protect the environment. New settlements provide a better alternative, meeting housing targets without overwhelming existing infrastructure. Developing the Clopton Quarter contradicts South Warwickshire’s "overarching principles" and should be permanently safeguarded. Allowing construction here sets a dangerous precedent, undermining long-term sustainability. This policy must be rejected in favour of responsible, strategic planning that prioritizes brownfield redevelopment and preserves vital green spaces for future generations.

No

Representation ID: 92841

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr John Greenaway

Only as a very last resort should any green belt land be built on. These areas of land were designed to stop urban sprawl where towns and villages mere into one horrendous development. They are also essential for all our wild life, not only being there homes but they provide wild life corridors allowing movement over large areas so aiding breeding.

Yes

Representation ID: 92873

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Alison Blake

Given the apparent prevalence of mental health problems and its apparent cost in benefits, to allow development on green belt land appears counterintuitive. People need access to outdoor green space near to the communities where they have other forms of support. We should also be reducing the food miles on what we eat. Supermarkets must be made more responsible for promoting local food production.

No

Representation ID: 92918

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Summix Planning Limited

Additional land should be removed from the Green Belt where is facilitates sustainable patterns of development. Land at New Road promoted by Summix represents one such example where release of the land from the Green Belt would facilitate sustainable patterns of development without detriment to the purposes of the Green Belt as defined by the NPPF. The release of SG23 and the Summix land in combination would enable a comprehensive approach to Green Belt and a long term well planned and enduring solution for Henley in Arden to be applied.

No

Representation ID: 92976

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Dominic Momcilovic

The development of SG18 would have a huge impact on the environment and erode the Welcombe Hills and its biodiversity. We need to protect the green spaces around Stratford.

No

Representation ID: 93054

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Joshua Tipping

I do not agree with building on an area inside a green belt and destroying and area of biodiversity when there are areas outside of the green bet that have been proposed and have been marked as suitable. I understand the idea of "moving" a village out of the green belt as this is no longer a green area with as diverse wildlife but i do not agree with removing the area around a village from the green belt as this area will still function as an area of green bio diversity with minimal disruption from a small population.

No

Representation ID: 93079

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Martina Hunt

South Warwickshire has opportunities to safeguard its environmental integrity by abiding by its overarching principles 'of a beautiful South Warwickshire' and a 'biodiverse and environmentally resilient South Warwickshire'. safeguarding Green belt land for the future is a responsibility of us all now, and absolutely no green belt should be considered when there are brown field and grey field land available for development. Urban sprawl apart from being unsightly, therefore less attractive to visitors, does not have an infrastructure to withstand further development, such as in Stratford. The Clopton Quarter of SG18, with Welcombe Hills, should therefore be permanently safeguarded.

No

Representation ID: 93095

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Simon Thomas

The Green Belt Review document that forms part of the technical evidence refers to the site as LSP7 and LSP8.

1.1. The Green Belt Review included as technical evidence is flawed – LSP7 and LSP8 make strong contributions to the Green Belt.
1.2. Sites LSP7 and LSP8 protect the separation between Lillington / Leamington and Cubbington Village – if SG05 is allowed to proceed, Cubbington will lose its village identity and be completely subsumed as a suburb of Leamington.
1.3. As per the findings of the last Local Plan inspection, this key purpose for Green Belt should be protected.

No

Representation ID: 93105

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Matt Sansom

Half of the planned sites are in the green belt. All other options should be exhausted before considering killing off this area. Building around Hatton and Hampton Magna area as planning suggests will be losing them as villages. Planning next to Hampton Magna specifically is not only in the green belt but also farm land in use and houses supposed protected wildlife which now more than ever should be protected.

Other

Representation ID: 93123

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Naomi McAinsh

Before considering green belt sites, it is crucial to prioritize non-green belt sites, especially brownfield ones. There are enough sustainable non-green belt sites to meet housing needs, eliminating the need to use green belt land. In any green belt review, the quality of these sites should be assessed for their role in preventing urban sprawl (e.g., Kenilworth & Coventry), extending Kenilworth into the countryside, and closing gaps between villages and Warwick (e.g., SGO4). Additionally, the green belt land's openness, landscape character, and biodiversity should be carefully evaluated.

No

Representation ID: 93172

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gordon Sharp

Brown field should be used for housing development, the use of green belt should be a last resort.

No

Representation ID: 93286

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Samantha Perry-Evans

We need to pay more attention and focus to NOT developing on green belt

Other

Representation ID: 93332

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Cllr David Armstrong

Key points are:
-Lack of railway capacity means sustainability of Green Belt sites is suspect and needs careful evidencing.
-Green Belt separating Kenilworth, Burton Green and Coventry is under pressure from HS2 already, narrow, strongly contributes to purpose 'B' in the NPPF and should be prioritised.
-Any new Green Belt development should meet the new NPPF guidelines of 50% affordable housing, and also strictly enforce housing types that match the need for affordable housing.

Other

Representation ID: 93350

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Ian Michael Hayes

Greenbelt land should always be protected from development until there are no other alternatives, At the time of writing, there is adequate non greenbelt land within the control of the council to facilitate far more development than you are being instructed to plan for. Leave the Greenbelt alone.

No

Representation ID: 93454

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Teresa Hayes

Greenbelt should not be used and retained to prevent urban sprawl and to protect our historic towns and ancient woodlands.

No

Representation ID: 93480

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Tim Strafford

Where villages have been "insetted" (built up area of village removed from Green Belt designation), the remaining Green Belt surrounding them should be protected to avoid encroachment, retaining a Green Belt of clear separation from other settlements, major roads/dual carriageways of at least 300m.

Other

Representation ID: 93482

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Denise Holroyde

Brownfield sites must be fully developed first. Great care should be taken in developing Green Belt land as it leads to urban sprawl and lack of community feel. It also removes the availability of easy access to green space, parks, nature reserves and footpaths for local residents.

No

Representation ID: 93602

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Steph Johnson

I believe the the current plan gives insufficient protection to the greenbelt and that the utilisation of brownfield sites and empty housing should be exhausted before our children's heritage is encroached upon.

No

Representation ID: 93608

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Christopher Bull

There are sufficient sites outside of the Green Belt to accommodate South Warwickshire's housing needs, therefore I don't see that 'exceptional circumstances' can be justified using the sequential approach and therefore all strategic growth areas in the green belt should be removed.

The Arup Green Belt Study undermined the 'soundness' of the local plan by its definition of 'large built up area' and excluding land North of Stratford and Leamington/Warwick- As with the planning case in Kidderminster, this lacks credibility, as if this land was not intended to prevent sprawl, it would not have been included in the Green belt.