Yes

Representation ID: 99604

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Gillian Padgham

Agree.

No

Representation ID: 99818

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Delve

I don't support using Brown belt sites that are within in Greenbelt to support a new settlement.

Yes

Representation ID: 99824

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Waller

Yes, brownfield land should be developed first, as long as all wildlife species are protected and mitigated for

Yes

Representation ID: 99961

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

I agree with this policy in general. If it were applied at the Long Marston airfield development 10000 new houses should be ruled out as it is not in a sustainable location.

Yes

Representation ID: 100082

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Adrian Parsons

I agree with the approach laid out

Yes

Representation ID: 100103

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Hall

Brownfield land is available and should be used in preference to loss of green belt land.

Yes

Representation ID: 100188

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anna Taylor

Developing brownfield land must take priority over Green Belt expansion to prevent irreversible damage to open landscapes. National policies emphasize the importance of protecting undeveloped land to prevent urban sprawl and maintain natural green spaces. Brownfield sites provide an opportunity for renewal, utilising existing infrastructure while ensuring housing needs are met without environmental harm. Prioritising regeneration over expansion ensures growth happens responsibly, avoiding the loss of valuable countryside. This approach aligns with sustainable planning principles, ensuring that development supports urban renewal, preserves the character of the area, and minimizes its impact on nature and local communities.

Yes

Representation ID: 100215

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Ann Colley

Bronwfiled sites should be used rather than green field sites.

Yes

Representation ID: 100246

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Cooper

Brownfield land must be fully utilised.

Yes

Representation ID: 100285

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

Brownfield land should be prioritised above greenbelt land as s et out in the policy to protect against loss of open landscape and prevent urban sprawl.

Yes

Representation ID: 100442

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Aimee Carter

Must develop Brownfield sites before any greenfield site is considered.
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.

Yes

Representation ID: 100460

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr peter spreadbury

Brown Field must be the 1st choice for residential and light commercial development. Developers and planners need to be forced into creating and delivering solutions where Brown Field (former commercial or old/obsolescent housing) land can be re-used.

Yes

Representation ID: 100545

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Vanessa Chivers

Redevelopment of brown field land can only be a positive. Developers should be made to clean the land and not to be paid by the council or tax-payer.

No

Representation ID: 100575

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Pauline James

This is too vague. Using Brownfield sites should be such a priority to use first that you have an inventory of them, cited here.

How much brownfield is available?

What policies do you have of acquiring brownfield?

Yes

Representation ID: 100603

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Residents Concerned for Kenilworth South

Brownfield sites must be used for housing, as these sites provide all the required land to meet additional housing needs.

Yes

Representation ID: 100615

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Janine McComiskey

Yes! This should absolutely be prioritised to avoid using green belt land. Also, brownfield sites are usually close to local amenities and have existing infrastructure, making them sustainable and enabling 20-minute neighbourhoods.

Yes

Representation ID: 100692

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Gladman support the delivery of brownfield development sites. However, the Councils should be mindful that these sites are not without complication. They can typically incur high development costs and therefore are not always viable. This can in turn impact affordable housing provision and the provision of other community benefits that greenfield sites can typically deliver without significant issue.

Yes

Representation ID: 100724

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Catherine Hogarth

Agreed

No

Representation ID: 100740

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Beausale, Hasely, Honiley & Wroxall Parish Council

This statement needs to be strengthened. Brownfield land should ALWAYS be used first for development and brownfield sites should be made safe to accommodate any new potential development.

Yes

Representation ID: 100780

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr guy evans

Yes brownfield land should be used as well as land adjacent to village boundaries or could be considered limited infill joining two pieces of the same village together this would have limited impact on the Green Belt

Other

Representation ID: 101009

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mac Mic Group

Agent: Marrons

Mic Mac Group offers no response to Draft Policy Direction 9

Other

Representation ID: 101033

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mac Mic Group

Agent: Marrons

Mac Mic Group offers no response.

Other

Representation ID: 101062

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr James Wilby

This a appropriate in "some" circumstances; but should not be used as an excuse to re-purpose land already in use (just earning less value than property) or is partially brownfield, and would be better left as is, or re-wilding (such airfeilds)

Yes

Representation ID: 101140

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Hallam Land Management Limited

Agent: Mr Jack Barnes

Full use should be made of brownfield land in suitable locations in line with national policy. However, given the scale of need identified, it can only play a small part in meeting the requirement and greenfield sites will be required to deliver the Vision in relation to infrastructure and affordable homes.

No

Representation ID: 101196

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Adrian Summers on behalf of the Summers Family

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Given that significant parts of the districts are rural in nature the proposed tiered approach to Brownfield Land disadvantages rurally located sites such as Claybank Farm, and fails to consider the implications of the “Grey Belt” factor.

Yes

Representation ID: 101272

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Bart Slob

I agree with Draft Policy Direction 9 but believe it needs stronger commitments to prioritising brownfield land over Green Belt development. While the plan encourages brownfield use, it does not guarantee all suitable sites will be utilised before considering Green Belt release. Stronger policy wording is needed to ensure brownfield land is the first priority. Additionally, funding and infrastructure improvements must support urban regeneration, as remediation costs can make brownfield development less viable. The policy should explicitly commit to brownfield-first development, secure investment for regeneration, and ensure infrastructure is in place to support sustainable redevelopment before considering Green Belt.

Other

Representation ID: 101291

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr H Farmer

Draft Policy Direction 9's brownfield-first approach is supported as it promotes sustainable development and urban regeneration while protecting valuable greenfield land. This sequential approach ensures the most efficient use of land by prioritising previously developed sites before considering greenfield development. However, the policy needs to be explicit that greenfield sites should only be considered once all suitable brownfield options have been fully explored and exhausted. This provides a clear framework for development decisions while protecting our countryside.

Yes

Representation ID: 101464

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Zoe Leventhal

Brownfield land should be strongly preferred to maintain the protection of GB in this important areas

No

Representation ID: 101532

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Vincent Rollason

This development is not good for the area

Yes

Representation ID: 101717

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Crump

Urban brownfield development is one thing, that of rural land, another.Whilst the need to travel in urban areas can be facilitated by transport modes such as bus and rail services, these are less available in rural areas such as along Marston, for example, where reliance on private motor vehicle for work, leisure and other service related journeys, underlines the fact that there is no transport sustainability for further development of the Meon Vale and Airfield sites.