Yes

Representation ID: 86070

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Sandy McCaskie

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 86240

Received: 17/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Brightburn

Is employment land in existing town centres being taken into account too, not just outer settlement car-based locations?

No

Representation ID: 86454

Received: 25/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carole Johnson

There is insufficient public transport in this area which results in a larger number of cars when travelling in rural areas. Trains DO NOT cover many of these proposed areas.

Yes

Representation ID: 86655

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Bridgewater

Please ensure that all new employment areas have good public transport (preferably rail) to make them sustainable in a Climate Crisis challenge world.

Yes

Representation ID: 87017

Received: 02/02/2025

Respondent: S Gardner

Yes

Yes

Representation ID: 87389

Received: 08/02/2025

Respondent: Cllr Andrew Day

None

No

Representation ID: 87571

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: mrs susan morris

I do not agree

Yes

Representation ID: 88155

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anne Parry

Agree with this approach.

Yes

Representation ID: 88408

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Maurice Stokes

South of the A46 is the east west boundary line which os most suitable for development. Long Marston could be the new Gaydon.

Yes

Representation ID: 88409

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Annette Pharo

The A46 corridor is suitable for development due to the proposed road and rail improvements.

Yes

Representation ID: 88668

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ida Marjorie Brown

Agree in principle with Core Opportunity Area for New Employment as its a logical are that fits around existing infrastructure. This latter point, of infrastructure is key for new development as i doubt in some key areas it is most inadequate so clarity on that is required before any new development.

Other

Representation ID: 88759

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Jerry Corless

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 88817

Received: 18/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sidney Syson

I would hope that more joined up safe cycle routes would be provided in this area to encourage cycling to work.

No

Representation ID: 89026

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

I see no need for a "core Area" and consider that all policies should be Plan area wide. I think this adds nothing to the plan

Yes

Representation ID: 89397

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Amanda Knight

No additional comments

No

Representation ID: 90575

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Terry Simmonds

Rather than providing all the employment in The Core Opportunity Are, incentivize employers to the rural areas to the south of South Warwickshire.

Where The Core Opportunity Area is proposed creates a large area arounf Shipston on Stour where travel out of the area is the only option.

SG17 Should also be treated as a Core Opportunity Area

No

Representation ID: 90618

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Warwick Town Council

Based around the M40, so motorway network, and therefore increasing car travel to a much greater extent than if it focused on locations near public transport. Also excludes those without car access from employment opportunities. Co locating businesses means there’s less housing nearby and further increases car dependency. Core opportunity area should be close to towns and public transport and not include the large rural areas.

No

Representation ID: 90660

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Martin Littlewood

The phrase "the aim of creating capacity on the area's roads" rings alarm bells as most roads int he area are already at capacity. Build new roads and they will get filled to capacity in a very short time.

Yes

Representation ID: 90842

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Malcolm Fisk

I agree

Yes

Representation ID: 91151

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Radford Semele Parish Council

‘It is recognised that the Core Opportunity Area is the most suitable area for most of the
new employment development but it should also be recognised that within this there are
areas which are not suitable for many types of employment growth and that there are areas
outside the Core Opportunity area which will be suitable for employment growth.’

Yes

Representation ID: 91159

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs liz jackson

c

Yes

Representation ID: 91257

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Norman

Sensible

Yes

Representation ID: 91750

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Taylor

N/A

Other

Representation ID: 91880

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Steve Bird

With regards do Wellesbourne preferred growth policy, the potential tie between Warwick university and Wellesbourne airfield is mentioned as a technology and research opportunity for aviation related businesses, which is favourable.
However there is currently a planning application in for a vast site of steel shed warehouses which is completely at odds with the preferred plan. I do hope therefore that the planning application in its current state will be revised and resubmitted in line with the preferred policy

Other

Representation ID: 91965

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Wellesbourne and Walton Parish Council

If Wellesbourne is to be included in the COA then significant improvement is needed to public transport and active travel measures. The capacity of A429 also needs to be considered.

Yes

Representation ID: 92119

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: General Aviation Awareness Council and Airfield Operators Group

Wellesbourne Airfield is, quite correctly, identified as a Major Investment Site, taking account of its location, site size which offers development opportunities, its range of services and the opportunity for these to be enhanced.
This innovative, forward looking approach will support the retention of the Airfield and provide significant contributions to the Plan’s economic strategy. The justification for this is clearly set out in the Draft Plan.

Yes

Representation ID: 92376

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Julian Brown

Agree

Yes

Representation ID: 92535

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Fairburn

Please make sure the public transport and active travel parts of this policy direction are strongly emphasised.

No

Representation ID: 92592

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Bex Thomson

Do not agree with any development at all on green belt fir housing or business

Yes

Representation ID: 93887

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Beverley Comley

Public transport routes must serve these new areas and be affordable