No

Representation ID: 98366

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Daine Davis

Densification is a very effective means of reducing the land take for development. It also assists greatly with the provision of infrastructure and facilities. The plan should come down much more strongly in favour of far greater housing density than is traditional in South Warwickshire. The draft leaves the policy very vague and unquantifiable. Developers will tend to favour less dense development which is more profitable for them

Yes

Representation ID: 98480

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Philip Sykes

Agreed provided the facilities are provided to enable a 20 minute neighbourhood to be followed.

No

Representation ID: 98613

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Hambridge

How does your recommendation to not define density enable you to protect our neighbourhoods? There should be a maximum density that is in keeping with what is around it. Over crowded developments have so little parking that this has an impact on the surrounding roads and quality of life for those who live there. Developments that are out of keeping with their neighbouring properties completely change the feel of that area, there's minimal green space and no one seems to care about that.

Other

Representation ID: 98669

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: X2 New Settlement Consortium

Agent: Mr Jack Barnes

The principle of Draft Policy Direction 8 is acceptable, as it aligns with Chapter 11 of the Framework (Making effective use of land). The SWLP should ensure that policies regarding density align with Paragraphs 129 and 130 of the Framework, particularly local market conditions and viability (Paragraph 129b).

Any density policy within the SWLP should acknowledge the impact that evidence-based housing needs, such as the mix and type of housing, will impact the densities that can be viably and feasibly delivered.

No

Representation ID: 98774

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Helena Foreman

Consideration should be given to developing at significantly higher densities around the key transport hubs of Warwick, Kenilworth, Leamington, and Stratford. In these areas, high-quality, taller buildings that are integrated with transport interchanges should be prioritised, as this is the most sustainable development for the district. These urban centres, which are well-connected by public transport, offer the best opportunity for residents to live closely to essential services, shops, amenities, all within walking distance. In such locations, it becomes feasible to reduce the reliance on private cars, encouraging more sustainable living, maximising the use of existing infrastructure and reduce urban sprawl.

Yes

Representation ID: 99005

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: MPTL

Agent: Harris Lamb

We fully support the SWLP making full use of sustainable brownfield land before development is considered in other locations. Stoneleigh Park (HELAA ID100) is a large previously developed site in the Green Belt. The proposed Kingswood Business Park (HELAA reference ID99) contains significant areas of built and permitted development. A large proportion of this site is currently being used as a HS2 compound that’s use is expected to cease in 2030.

No

Representation ID: 99110

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Wyatt

Policy should take into account the cars, vans, caravans and campers that individuals may want to store at their homes. In particular I refer to so called affordable housing where the evidence is their are too many road going vehicles and lack of visitor parking.

No

Representation ID: 99284

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land - Wellesbourne

There is no detail in the draft policy on the density levels that will be sought in any particular area or location.

Yes

Representation ID: 99307

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr James Kennedy

It is not surprising that developers don’t want optimal densities as they have a fiduciary duty to maximise profit, rather than what is good for residents overall. Specifying suitably high densities in urban areas and the centre of new settlements is crucial for effective 20 minute neighbourhoods and reducing the space required for housing. Advantages include making it feasible for most children to walk or cycle to school. Serious consideration must be given to reducing S106 and CIL contribution, as well as car parking requirements in suitable high-density locations.

Yes

Representation ID: 99345

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

I agree with good quality high density housing near employment centres with good infrastructure.

No

Representation ID: 99475

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carolyn Haynes

The proposals double or more the density of the current towns and villages which is not sustainable.

No

Representation ID: 99515

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Steven Murray

The total area of SG20 covers 254.55 hectares up to the Wixfird Road from Bidford. You can potentially get up to 35 houses per hectare that could equate to over 9,000 dwellings. This would have a HUGE IMPACT on The Graftons and it is important that it does not go into land bank for the next 25 years as this would totally erode the open countryside by an over dense population.

No

Representation ID: 99597

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Loades

South Wellesbourne does NOT need 'densification'. This will have massively negative impact on the environment; an increase in pollution, increase in traffic (on dangerous roads), and a risk of demolishing the countryside. It will also have a negative impact on current wildlife.

Yes

Representation ID: 99598

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Gillian Padgham

Broadly agree with this.

No

Representation ID: 99599

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jean Bull

Brown field sites could be considered first.

No

Representation ID: 99629

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Welford on Avon Parish Council

All sounds very good but none of the existing policies have been followed so why would this one be followed.

Most of the proposed development for new settlemtns is in open countrside, this demands low density, small scale developments; 5 -10 houses at a time.

No

Representation ID: 99755

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Delve

A number of the proposed sites are in rural areas which be there very nature or not densely build on. the level of density and the ability to increase will turn Stratford and surround area into Legoland impacting biodiversity the environment and the local tourism.

No

Representation ID: 99775

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Delve

The level of density proposed is far too high for a rural town and shouldn't be able to be increased but the focus needs to be on reducing it. rural areas and the rural way of life must be protected and by there very nature they don't not have dense housing. If this density is not reduced this will impact of biodiversity and the activeness of the rural towns ultimately impacting tourism, which is the lifeblood for Stratford and Warwickshire.

Yes

Representation ID: 100072

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Adrian Parsons

Broadly speaking this would be supported, as long as densification is carried out with all due consideration to the impact on local services, access and affordability of public transport, and meaningful enhancements to biodiversity.

Other

Representation ID: 100200

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Ann Colley

It is not clear to the quantity of dwellings proposed, but potentially +5,000. The villegers already experience anticsocial beheaviour from the country park users especially at night and more so in the summer months. There is the potential for this to increase.

Yes

Representation ID: 100244

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Cooper

This is essential to achieve the maximum use of land.

Yes

Representation ID: 100277

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

Some areas of development, particularly brownfield sites, will lend themselves to higher density developments.

Yes

Representation ID: 100450

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr peter spreadbury

High density provides lower cost homes with local access to local facilities without the need for significant travel. This must be a factor in providing the number of homes needed in Warwickshire. Most people just want their own front door, a safe place to raise a family or to retire. Most people may want but don't need a private garden, private parking and 4 bedrooms. My work colleagues generally just need to start their housing journey and something adequate is often exactly what the need.

No

Representation ID: 100565

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Pauline James

This density section is too vague. Developers will misuse it to build expensive houses unsuited to those aged 20-40.

Hamlet Way CV370AL is about 282 metres long ((0.2 miles). The roads, open spaces and buildings fronting Hamlet way are about 0.86ha in which there are 140 properties comprising twenty 3-bed semi-detached and 8 3-bed terraces, 108 flats/ maisonettes 1 detached and 3 other dwellings. This equates to 160 dwellings per hectare at 0.006 ha each, yet it looks spacious.

Except for individual houses, housing development in the greenbelt should be creatively designed at 160 dwellings per hectare, sparing the land.

Yes

Representation ID: 100613

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Janine McComiskey

We need the high densities in towns to enable 20-minute neighbourhoods and all the positive outcomes this brings. It also reduces the space needed for the housing requirement. Providing apartments will mean that first time buyers are more likely to enter the housing market too. We need to use the existing infrastructure within the towns rather than concreting over more new open space. Developers should not get to decide as they are only interested in profit and not what is good for the area and the residents - the council should be in charge!

No

Representation ID: 100869

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land - Wellesbourne

There is no detail in the draft policy on the density levels that will be sought in any particular area or location. Density levels should be realistic and should consider net to gross ratios.

Other

Representation ID: 100893

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Rowington Landowner Consortium

Agent: Knight Frank LLP

The draft policy seeks to incorporate densities in design codes which may include areas for higher density. Flexibility in these codes is essential to prevent conflicts that might impede the growth strategy, especially for new settlements and strategic growth locations. Larger settlements may encompass varied densities, with higher densities near local centres or transport hubs and lower densities on peripheries. An overarching density strategy, for example with indicative density ranges, could allow for site-specific codes to address site specific requirements which would assist the council's development management team in assessing suitability and achievability of densities in proposed developments.

No

Representation ID: 100919

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Aldridge

Infrastructure has not been thought through

No

Representation ID: 100965

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stuart Foreman

Building at much higher densities around the key transport hubs of Warwick, Kenilworth, Leamington, and Stratford need to be considered. Developing high-quality, taller buildings in urban areas close to transport links is crucial, as it’s the most sustainable way to grow the district. These are the areas where residents can realistically live within walking distance of everything they need, reducing the reliance on private cars. By focusing development around transport interchanges, we can create more vibrant, connected communities while minimizing the environmental impact of car-dependent living. This approach is essential for the district’s long-term sustainability.

Other

Representation ID: 101001

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Stevens

The vast majority of proposed developments will injure or displace the green belt in the areas in and around Kenilworth. This is unacceptable, with the integrity of identity being eroded continuously between towns and settlements, e.g. Kenilworth and Coventry is beginning to look like a smudge on the local map such that it is hard to differentiate between the two locations. The fundamentals of the green belt definition are set aside by the SWLP plan. I propose that you satisfy the full growth of the 2188 houses per year (over 25 years) in non-green belt locations, maybe one large settlement.