Other

Representation ID: 85965

Received: 10/01/2025

Respondent: Graham Ball

If 50,000 new homes really are needed in Warwickshire in future, I propose that the plan suggests that they could all be provided by 125 tower blocks with 50 floors with 8 flats per floor. 125 tower blocks would not take up much space. A few 50 floor offices would provide jobs. No further housing would be needed elsewhere in Warwickshire. The council would thus demonstrate it can deliver government targets and show that the targets are ridiculous because this development clearly wouldn't improve per capita living standards of pre-existing Warwickshire residents who have a fertility rate of below 2.

Yes

Representation ID: 86003

Received: 11/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kate Harris

If a brownfield site is not considered to be in a suitable location I would welcome the Authority supporting and facilitating use for other purposes in particular environmental

Yes

Representation ID: 86062

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Sandy McCaskie

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 86118

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Thomas Hoare

Brown field sites should always take presidence over sites in green belt , I firmly believe productive agricultural land ( not grazing )should be preserved ,

No

Representation ID: 86130

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Clive Corrie

Brownfield sites should be used for development, Green Belt land should not be used for development.

Yes

Representation ID: 86239

Received: 17/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Brightburn

I'm not seeing many sites in existing urban centres featuring in the numbers on housing? Leamington for example has a number of potential town centre sites. These would be sustainable locations and support other regeneration activities. Are these being taken into account at all?

No

Representation ID: 86251

Received: 17/01/2025

Respondent: Michelle McHugh

No, some brownfield land has historical significance - there should not be assumed that brownfield land should be developed on. Town centres should be regenerated

Yes

Representation ID: 86318

Received: 21/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Daniel Chandler

Brownfield sites should absolutely be prioritised

Yes

Representation ID: 86452

Received: 25/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carole Johnson

Brownfield sites should always be the first option

Other

Representation ID: 86591

Received: 28/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Bridgewater

"Consideration" for the use of Brownfield sites for non development uses is not strong enough. If any greenfield sites are developed, then Brownfield sites MUST be redeveloped for sustainable and low carbon uses first.

Yes

Representation ID: 86605

Received: 28/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Darrell Muffitt

Whereas I agree with the focus on brownfield development I believe that a much more proactive approach is needed to repopulating town centres in advance of regeneration. Too many town centres are dead or dying and there seem to be a lack of tangible ideas to tackle the issue.

No

Representation ID: 86903

Received: 31/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Arthur Hogan-Fleming

Not in favour of any development except dealing with derelict areas in the town centre. Already too much development, taxes too high, flooding a problem

Yes

Representation ID: 87009

Received: 02/02/2025

Respondent: S Gardner

You need to be braver in this area and also consider the conversion of brown sites in the centre of towns too.

Yes

Representation ID: 87053

Received: 03/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Judith Corless

Brown field sites should be developed first.

Yes

Representation ID: 87120

Received: 04/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Davinia Fisher

Brownfield should be used as priority before destroying Greenbelt land.

Yes

Representation ID: 87170

Received: 05/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Bryan Hay

Brownfield land is essentially a wasted resource, and must be utilised effectively before any Green Belt land is developed.

Yes

Representation ID: 87195

Received: 06/02/2025

Respondent: Mr R M Boorman

Please do build on urban areas that have previously been developed and not on farm land. 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.

Yes

Representation ID: 87224

Received: 06/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Chris Rusbridge

Seems sensible.

Yes

Representation ID: 87298

Received: 08/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Hewitt

We need to maximise house building.

Yes

Representation ID: 87381

Received: 08/02/2025

Respondent: Cllr Andrew Day

None

Yes

Representation ID: 87565

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: mrs susan morris

I agree

No

Representation ID: 87660

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Enness

The policy should state that all available brownfield land should be consumed prior to other development going ahead.

Yes

Representation ID: 87716

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mr justin kerridge

yes

Yes

Representation ID: 87859

Received: 11/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Kim James

1. By prioritizing brownfield land for development is a positive step toward reducing pressure on greenfield sites and making efficient use of previously developed land.

2. Ensuring that brownfield sites outside urban areas are assessed for their sustainability aligns with the need for well-planned growth that supports infrastructure, services, and accessibility.

3. Plan proposals must be supported by robust infrastructure planning and service provision to avoid creating isolated or car-dependent communities.

Yes

Representation ID: 88048

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sharon Quantrill

I completely agree with using brownfield sites I am unsure as to why greenbelt has been put forward for development.

Yes

Representation ID: 88049

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Quantrill

Completely agree with developing brownfield sites so why are so many site options within the green belt!?

Yes

Representation ID: 88094

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: British Film Institute

Agent: Ms Giulia Bunting

BFI is the UK’s lead organisation for film and the moving image. BFI’s storage facility at Lighthorne, established in 1978, forms an integral part of the BFI’s National Archive.
BFI is currently looking at options to expand its operations at the long-established brownfield site at Lighthorne.
Policy Direction 9 should enable existing brownfield sites in rural areas to be developed to enable the growth and expansion of businesses and operations, where appropriate, to support the appropriate expansion of all types of sustainable businesses.
This approach is supported by NPPF paragraphs 11, 85, 88(a), 89, and 124.

Yes

Representation ID: 88152

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anne Parry

Brownfield development must be given a priority.

Other

Representation ID: 88296

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mr John Tristram

Utilising existing brownfield sites must be the priority for development. These sites are unpopular with developers, due to the additional cost of clearing and construction, but they are often in the most suitable locations for housing and industry and can be developed to make use of existing infrastructure, without the need to encroach on valuable green spaces

Yes

Representation ID: 88348

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anne Beaumont

Good use of land which has previously been developed