Yes

Representation ID: 100512

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr peter spreadbury

I broadly agree. The objective is to provide homes to those who need them. A small number of self-build if managed will add character to any development.

Yes

Representation ID: 100645

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Susan Ray

self build is a vital necessity providing more affordable homes

No

Representation ID: 100886

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land - Wellesbourne

We do not support the proposal that 5% of all plots on large housing sites are made available for custom and self-build homes. There is no evidence to suggest that there is this level of demand for self and custom-build plots in such large clusters or that that they will be deliverable.

No

Representation ID: 100936

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Rowington Landowner Consortium

Agent: Knight Frank LLP

Draft Policy B proposes that developments of 100+ dwellings allocate 5% for self-build and custom-build (SBCB) plots, also supporting unallocated SBCB sites. However, evidence from the Stratford-on-Avon SBCB Statement (October 2024) indicates a largely unmet demand and the Warwick SBCB progress report (out of date) also indicates unmet demand. To ensure policy effectiveness, it is recommended to conduct detailed surveys with registrants and collaborate with secondary data providers to accurately assess demand, preferences, and suitable locations for SBCB plots. This approach will help determine the preferential strategy to meet SBCB demand.

No

Representation ID: 101022

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Marrons

The best way to deliver self and custom build homes to meet identified needs is to allocate specific sites designed to cater for such homes. Sites will be smaller by their nature, and therefore more responsive to market demand and more likely to be attractive to those wishing to develop their own homes. Larger sites can only efficiently be developed by the major housebuilders, and the inclusion of self and custom build within their developments can create health and safety and operational difficulties when homes in areas are being built by multiple developers to different timescales and standards.

No

Representation ID: 101023

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mac Mic Group

Agent: Marrons

The best way to deliver self and custom build homes to meet identified needs is to allocate specific sites designed to cater for such homes. Sites will be smaller by their nature, and therefore more responsive to market demand and more likely to be attractive to those wishing to develop their own homes. Larger sites can only efficiently be developed by the major housebuilders, and the inclusion of self and custom build within their developments can create health and safety and operational difficulties when homes in areas are being built by multiple developers to different timescales and standards.

No

Representation ID: 101149

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Hallam Land Management Limited

Agent: Mr Jack Barnes

The best way to deliver self and custom build homes to meet identified needs is to allocate specific sites designed to cater for such homes. Sites will be smaller by their nature, and therefore more responsive to market demand and more likely to be attractive to those wishing to develop their own homes. Larger sites can only efficiently be developed by the major housebuilders, and the inclusion of self and custom build within their developments can create health and safety and operational difficulties when homes in areas are being built by multiple developers to different timescales and standards.

Yes

Representation ID: 101304

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Bart Slob

I broadly agree with Draft Policy B but believe stronger commitments are needed to ensure delivery and affordability. The requirement for 5% of large sites to provide self-build plots is positive, but mechanisms must be in place to prevent developers from repurposing unsold plots for market housing too quickly. A clearer strategy for smaller, designated self-build sites is needed to increase accessibility for local buyers. Additionally, affordability must be considered, ensuring plots are not priced beyond reach. The policy should prioritise local demand, enforce long-term self-build commitments, and guarantee infrastructure is in place to support new developments.

No

Representation ID: 101319

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Chris Clews

Evidence suggests such schemes have only limited success - without intervention ...

No

Representation ID: 101330

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Hallam Land

Agent: Marrons

The best way to deliver self and custom build homes to meet identified needs is to allocate specific sites designed to cater for such homes. Sites will be smaller by their nature, and therefore more responsive to market demand and more likely to be attractive to those wishing to develop their own homes. Larger sites can only efficiently be developed by the major housebuilders, and the inclusion of self and custom build within their developments can create health and safety and operational difficulties when homes in areas are being built by multiple developers to different timescales and standards.

Yes

Representation ID: 101334

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Trenport Investments Limited

Agent: WSP UK

This response relates to draft Policy Direction 3 and draft Policy B.

We support the recognition in Paragraph 4.3 that small-scale development sites can make an important contribution to the overall development need in South Warwickshire, in particular through provision of self-build/custom-build housing. The Regulation 18 Issues and Options consultation also supported provision of more small-scale development. Small scale is generally quantified as being limited to no more than 10 dwellings.

Emerging Policy Direction 3 outlines that the SWLP will identify small sites to ensure provision of a 5-year housing land supply and meet the NPPF requirement for at least 10% of housing to be accommodated on sites no larger than 1ha. Small-scale development on unallocated sites will be supported in non-Green Belt locations where sites are within or adjacent to Built Up Area Boundaries. Draft Policy B notes that self-build/custom-build housing will be supported on specifically-allocated small allocations for this purpose and suitable unallocated sites, including those adjacent to defined settlement boundaries. Development of unallocated sites within defined settlement boundaries should be small-scale and appropriate to the size and character of the settlement.

Site ref. 697 complies with draft Policy Direction 3 and Policy B as a small-scale development site which can provide up to 10 self-build/custom-build dwellings within the settlement of Lighthorne, filling in land between existing development to the east, west and south of the site. This is shown on the appended indicative masterplan. The proposed development would follow a linear design of self-build/custom-build houses to accord with the existing character of the location and wider village. The site is not itself within the settlement boundary but is directly adjacent and would seamlessly follow the existing development line along Old School Lane, with a site layout purposely designed to not detract from the village's character or setting.

No

Representation ID: 101346

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Rob Elkington

Agent: Mr Will Whitelock

The requirement for individual and small groups of plots to be within defined settlement boundaries is overly restrictive. There will not be boundaries for all villages defined on the policies maps. As per NPPF Paragraph 60 sufficient land must be provided for those wishing to commission or build their own homes. There is a specific statutory duty under the Self-Build and Custom House Building Act to keep a Register and make available sufficient permissions to meet identified demand. Flexibility must be provided in policies to ensure sufficient suitable permissions.

The promoted site (Land adjacent to Edgehill Tower Turn, to the north of Stable House, Edgehill) is in the centre of Edgehill and surrounded by residential development, clearly within the physical confines of the village. There would be no encroachment into countryside, loss of agricultural land, and small-scale development would be appropriate for the character and size of the village. But as Edgehill has no defined settlement boundary it would not currently be supported by this policy.

Part C should be rephrased to state "within defined settlement boundaries or otherwise within the physical confines of a settlement".

No

Representation ID: 101422

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bellway Strategic Land / Ashberry Strategic Land

Agent: Marrons

The best way to deliver self and custom build homes to meet identified needs is to allocate specific sites designed to cater for such homes. Sites will be smaller by their nature, and therefore more responsive to market demand and more likely to be attractive to those wishing to develop their own homes.

Larger sites can only efficiently be developed by the major housebuilders, and the inclusion of self and custom build within their developments can create health and safety and operational difficulties when homes in areas are being built by multiple developers to different timescales and standards.

Other

Representation ID: 101428

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: caroline owen

It is considered that flexibility is provided in relation to any provision of self build/custom build housing plots. For instance, rather than requiring the policy to be incorporated, verbatim in s106 legal agreements, consideration should be had by Council regarding any existing waiting lists or demand for such accommodation.

Yes

Representation ID: 101530

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jo Valentine Barker

Yes

No

Representation ID: 101555

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Vincent Rollason

This development is not good for the area

No

Representation ID: 101561

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Alderley Holdings Trust

Agent: Mr Jack Barnes

The best way to deliver self and custom build homes to meet identified needs is to allocate specific sites designed to cater for such homes. Sites will be smaller by their nature, and therefore more responsive to market demand and more likely to be attractive to those wishing to develop their own homes. Larger sites can only efficiently be developed by the major housebuilders, and the inclusion of self and custom build within their developments can create health and safety and operational difficulties when homes in areas are being built by multiple developers to different timescales and standards.

Yes

Representation ID: 101865

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Agree but the District Council should not charge people to be on the self build register unless the District Council provides a specific service for this charge.

Other

Representation ID: 101969

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Grevayne Properties Limited

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

The policy states that 5% of the developable area of a site is to be made available for the provision of self-build and custom-build homes. This provision should be discretionary not a requirement since most self-builders are unlikely to want a site being built by a volume housebuilder.

Notwithstanding the above, site ref: 490 at Bedlam’s End, Baddesley Clinton, could be an ideal site, even if just in part, for Custom and Self Building Housing. The allocation of land at Bedlam’s End would ensure that the Council is making adequate provision for Custom and Self Building Housing, as required.

No

Representation ID: 102002

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Peter Drew Contracts Ltd

Agent: RCA Regeneration

The principle of supporting Self and Custom Build housing is supported. However these should be on small sites or unallocated sites, not on larger housing sites - the demand for these plots tends to be in more isolated locations.
The identification of local need should include need identified by the Self and Custom Build Register, rather than requiring a need identified by or supported by the local community. Alternatively the definition of district-wide need should specifically include need demonstrated for that area on the Self and Custom Build register.

Other

Representation ID: 102018

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Barwood Land

Agent: Savills (UK) Ltd

We have no objection in principle with the inclusion of a self/custom build policy requirement on large development sites. Whilst self/custom build is becoming more commonplace, we still have reservations over the appeal
of self/custom build plots that form part of large strategic-scale developments.
Most people looking to construct their own home are likely to want to do so on an individual plot or as part of a small collection of new homes. As such there is little evidence of self/custom build working successfully to boost housing delivery on large sites. We therefore recommend that a cascade mechanism is built into the policy which enables the developer to complete the development if the self/custom build plots do not come forward in a timely manner.

No

Representation ID: 102068

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Rough Hill Rare Breeds Ltd

Agent: RCA Regeneration

The principle of supporting Self and Custom Build housing is supported. For small sites or unallocated sites, the identification of local need should include need identified by the Self and Custom Build Register, rather than requiring a need identified by or supported by the local community. Alternatively the definition of district-wide need should specifically include need demonstrated for that area on the Self and Custom Build register.

No

Representation ID: 102132

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: IM Land 1 Limited

Agent: Turley

60. IM Land are of the view that it would not be appropriate to require large developments (100 or more dwellings) to provide a percentage of self and custom build plots. This is due to the scale of housing development that is often required, and the range of housing needs and demographics for different local areas.

No

Representation ID: 102164

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: BDW Trading Limited

Agent: Knight Frank LLP

Draft Policy B proposes that developments of 100+ dwellings allocate 5% for self-build and custom-build (SBCB) plots, also supporting unallocated SBCB sites. However, evidence from the Stratford-on-Avon SBCB Statement (October 2024) indicates a largely unmet demand and the Warwick SBCB progress report (out of date) also indicates unmet demand. To ensure policy effectiveness, it is recommended to conduct detailed surveys with registrants and collaborate with secondary data providers to accurately assess demand, preferences, and suitable locations for SBCB plots. This approach will help determine the preferential strategy to meet SBCB demand.

Yes

Representation ID: 102187

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Oram

Nothing to add

Other

Representation ID: 102264

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land

Agent: Turley

Requirements that go above and beyond the standard building regulation requirements as set out by the Draft Policy, applying the higher Building Regulations standard M4(2) and M4 (3), should be justified and otherwise considered on a site-by-site basis, and on a needs basis. This will ensure that homes are being built in the most appropriate locations to meet needs at the time of development. A blanket approach is not considered to be appropriate.

No

Representation ID: 102286

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Deeley Homes Ltd

Agent: RCA Regeneration

The principle of supporting Self and Custom Build housing is supported. However these should be on small sites or unallocated sites, not on larger housing sites - the demand for these plots tends to be in more isolated locations.
The identification of local need should include need identified by the Self and Custom Build Register, rather than requiring a need identified by or supported by the local community. Alternatively the definition of district-wide need should specifically include need demonstrated for that area on the Self and Custom Build register.

Other

Representation ID: 102307

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Grevayne Properties Limited

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

The policy states that 5% of the developable area of a site is to be made available for the provision of self-build and custom-build homes. This provision should be discretionary not a requirement since most self-builders are unlikely to want a site being built by a volume housebuilder.

Notwithstanding the above, site ref: 491 at Springfield Farm, Harbury, could be an ideal site, even if just in part, for Custom and Self Building Housing. The allocation of land at Springfield Farm would ensure that the Council is making adequate provision for Custom and Self Building Housing, as required.

No

Representation ID: 102328

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough

Agent: Marrons

The best way to deliver self and custom build homes to meet identified needs is to allocate specific sites designed to cater for such homes. Sites will be smaller by their nature, and therefore more responsive to market demand and more likely to be attractive to those wishing to develop their own homes. Larger sites can only efficiently be developed by the major housebuilders, and the inclusion of self and custom build within their developments can create health and safety and operational difficulties when homes in areas are being built by multiple developers to different timescales and standards.

Other

Representation ID: 102591

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Deeley Homes Dean Weldon

General support for the principle, however wording needs alteration to reflect the market conditions.