Other

Representation ID: 94804

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Kineton Parish Council

Yes – but suggest that the requirement for a bedroom to be large enough for 2 occupants should be more carefully defined eg “room for 2 of 900mm single beds with space of Xmm beside and between each”

Yes

Representation ID: 94843

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford-upon-Avon Town Transport Group

Yes

Other

Representation ID: 95112

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Robert Clarke

Whilst I agree that all people have the right to live in homes that meet their personal needs and circumstances, the number of homes that are wheelchair accessible seems to be disproportionate to the percentage of the population that are wheelchair users.
Properties that are specifically altered to make them wheelchair accessible may benefit from being co-located and given priority access to transport routes/medical facilities etc, but might also have reduced market potential as a result of their specific design bias.

Yes

Representation ID: 95219

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Edward Wilson

Harbury rural housing provides an excellent example of meeting the needs of local people in a small development.

No

Representation ID: 95293

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Alamo

Agent: Harris Lamb

The requisite evidence to warrant all new houses accord with NDSS is not provided

No

Representation ID: 95695

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: David Wilson Homes

Agent: Harris Lamb

we do not consider robust evidence has been presented to require all homes to be NDSS compliant.

Yes

Representation ID: 95702

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Amanda Dyhouse

N/A

No

Representation ID: 95727

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Bloor Homes Western

Agent: Marrons

The NPPF at Footnote 51 is clear that optional technical standards and the Nationally Described Space Standard should only be enforced through planning policy where this would address an identified need and where it can be justified. Policies will need to be tested for their impact on viability.

Yes

Representation ID: 95914

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Tesh

Yes. Minimum standards should be mandatory

Yes

Representation ID: 96045

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Marshall

It is important and appropriate to provide homes for all sizes of families and for a range of ages and mobility.

Yes

Representation ID: 96313

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Southam Town Council

Southam Town, District and County elected representatives support this draft Policy.

No

Representation ID: 96463

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Adam Ledger

Large sprawling developments continue to provide insufficient houses that are affordable for local people. Number of houses required continue to be based on flawed calculations and outdated evidence. Developments in the area are having a detrimental impact on the character and beauty of Leamington and Warwick leading to a loss of identity.

Yes

Representation ID: 96484

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Isobel Hazelwood

I do not think that lack of funds should be any reason for a developer not to be required to implement the Amenity Standards.

Yes

Representation ID: 96528

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Shipston Town Council

Minimum standards should be mandatory.

Yes

Representation ID: 96655

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Catherine Mitchley

I agree with the need to provide adequate space and adaptable dwellings to accommodate the population's changing needs over time. Would support flexibility and sensitivity when older properties are incorported into new schemes to ensure character is retained. It is beneficial to well-being to have varied housing stock to create pleasant living environment.
Would urge that new buildings are constructured to a high and durable standard using quality materials and skilled labour - the current worrying trend of quick cheap construction without regard to being 'built to last' is short sighted and costly to the environment and future generations.

Yes

Representation ID: 96667

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: John Dinnie

uphold minimum standards.

Yes

Representation ID: 96824

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jane Quinn

NA

Yes

Representation ID: 96847

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Alcester Town Council

Agreed that all residential dwellings should comply with national standards. Alcester Town Council, Arrow with Weethley Parish Council, Kinwarton Parish Council, Wixford Parish Council and Great Alne Parish Council (together referred to as Alcester Parishes Group or ‘APG’) also suggests that with reference to the Development Management Considerations, it would be prudent to strengthen the requirement that applicants demonstrate that compliance with the provisions is not practical and financially viable, and make it a condition that independent assessment is also required.

Yes

Representation ID: 96930

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Jeffery

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 97128

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Tysoe Parish Council

Yes

No

Representation ID: 97241

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Squab Hall Farm

Agent: Mr Jack Barnes

The NPPF at Footnote 51 is clear that optional technical standards and the Nationally Described Space Standard should only be enforced through planning policy where this would address an identified need and where it can be justified. Policies will need to be tested for their impact on viability.

Yes

Representation ID: 97321

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lucy White

N/a

Other

Representation ID: 97380

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Godwin Developments

Godwin Developments acknowledge the proposed policy direction but as noted by the National Planning Policy Guidance that the implementation of Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS) needs to take into consideration a range factors including need and viability.

Other

Representation ID: 97460

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr HUGH KEEP

I agree generally but worry about the Development Management Considerations. In recent years the "not practical and financially viable" has been used to avoid building affordable housing.

No

Representation ID: 97463

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes

Agent: Harris Lamb

no evidence has been presented that justifies all houses having to accord with NDSS.

Other

Representation ID: 97569

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Brenda Stewart

Current building often seems to include an unnecessary number of larger houses. There should be a limit on this and a maximum size, as well as a minimum size for new housing.

Yes

Representation ID: 97682

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Susan Leonard

Bedrooms should be large enough for at least 2 people.

Other

Representation ID: 97800

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Jeffery

No comment is made regarding other than affordable homes. Is it to be assumed that proposed settlements wilk consist only of these?

Other

Representation ID: 97928

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Samuel Gillick-Daniels

This policy describes space/size requirements once number of bedrooms and affordability has already been set. This misses the intrinsic link between the right size of home and its number of bedrooms/affordability. In other words, the number of 2-bed houses in total relate to providing the right size of homes for South Warwickshire residents (and in the right places).

No

Representation ID: 98089

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: William Davis Limited

Agent: Marrons

The NPPF at Footnote 51 is clear that optional technical standards and the Nationally Described Space Standard should only be enforced through planning policy where this would address an identified need and where it can be justified. Policies will need to be tested for their impact on viability.