Yes

Representation ID: 97580

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Brenda Stewart

no comment

Other

Representation ID: 97610

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Martin Winter

Development at J12 of the M40 should be restricted to the old RAF Gaydon site to maintain the local rural character of the area and to manage visual impact.

Yes

Representation ID: 97732

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Jeffery

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 97852

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Stafford-scott

Yes I agree

Yes

Representation ID: 97948

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Charlotte Careless

Yes

Yes

Representation ID: 97998

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Bowater

Yes I agree with the points laid out.

No

Representation ID: 98515

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Holly Farm Business Park

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Strategic level growth must be encouraged and accommodated but the current consultation appears pre-occupied with this. It is telling that there is no policy related to non-strategic employment growth. It is also not appropriate for the plan to direct non-strategic growth to strategic allocations since this is not likely to be attractive to many SMEs.

Is Stoneleigh Park an existing Major Investment Site? Its historic use predominantly as a venue for major events and exhibitions is different and should not place it higher in the ‘pecking order’ than other employment locations such as Holly Farm Business Park.

Yes

Representation ID: 98557

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Robert Macvie

Employment opportunities currently exist and can be expanded with development in any of these sites.

Yes

Representation ID: 98593

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Alice Hibbert

The two key areas that could provide both job opportunities and new settlement options with infrastructure in place:

MIS.1 - Gaydon Area / M40 Junction 12 including Jaguar Land Rover and Aston Martin Lagonda

MIS.2/MIS.3 - Long Marston Area including the Garden Village and the Long Marston Rail Innovation Centre.

Other

Representation ID: 98880

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: University of Warwick Wellesbourne Innovation Campus

Support the emerging allocation but object to the specific references to agri-tech - the Innovation Campus wil comprise a wide range of Research and Development floorspace within numerous specific sectors.
Reference that the Innovation Campus will comprise two phases; the first being that related to the adopted Masterplan SPD area and the second being the residual land. The policy needs to clarify the ancillary / supporting / growth opportunity provided by the residual land (rather than the airfield) and allow for an SPD to be produced with the UoW to clarify both specific uses and design principles.

Yes

Representation ID: 98935

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Liberal Democrat Group (Stratford District councillors)

I agree with the approach

No

Representation ID: 99047

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: MPTL

Agent: Harris Lamb

No, the extent of the Stoneleigh Park Major Investment Site (MIS 6) should be extended to include the Kingswood Business Park adjacent to the A46 as detailed in our Call for Sites submission. It should reflect the extent of Strategic Growth Location SG02 – Stoneleigh Park Employment Group.

Other

Representation ID: 99241

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Coventry City Council and Coventry Airport Ltd

Agent: Mr Robert Barnes

The identification of the MIS for employment use and the main focus of new employment development is supported. The recognition within the treatment Draft Policy Direction 14 provides for MIS.4 (South of Coventry Area) for Gigafactory development at the Airport is appropriate, mindful of the planning permission already secured there for such a scheme. However, two observations should be made in this regard.

First, the wording as currently expressed indicates the allocation will be for “a” Gigafactory and “a” facility. As the site is brought forward this might still be the case, but the scale and nature of development permitted here and evolution in the approaches taken by manufacturers mean that one potential outcome is more than one operator taking space in the scheme. As such any allocation should support advanced industry associated with this sector more generally.

Second, the text for MIS.4 also includes, “There is also opportunity for further employment development here that could link to the automative industry and the National Battery Industrialisation Centre, and could contribute to South Warwickshire or Coventry's unmet need.” It is important that this sentiment is carried through into any policy for MIS.4 and the type of development that will be supported across this area.

The current expectation that the Airport can accommodate battery manufacturing development is noted, including in the context of paragraph 86 c) of the NPPF which states that policies should, “pay particular regard to facilitating development to meet the needs of a modern economy, including by identifying suitable locations for uses such as…gigafactories…”. However, the same paragraph goes on to state (part e)) that policies should, “be flexible enough to accommodate needs not anticipated in the plan, and allow for new and flexible working practices and spaces to enable a rapid response to changes in economic circumstances.”

The emerging Plan is expected to operate over an extended period. As explained elsewhere in these representations the Airport is a valuable brownfield resource capable of contributing materially to meeting development requirements in a highly sustainable location that should be released from Green Belt. It represents a suitable location for advanced manufacturing development and that should be recognised by the Plan, but an allowance should also be made such that it can contribute flexibly to changes in economic circumstances for employment development if required. The Plan should allow for such flexibility here.

Yes

Representation ID: 99325

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Garry Rollason

I agree with the approach suggested

Other

Representation ID: 99348

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Summers Holdings Ltd

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Broadly agree, however, as with housing, focusing on large employment sites at the expense of smaller sites is a concern.

Other

Representation ID: 99493

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carolyn Haynes

There are no plans for Major Investments sites around Alcester yet there is a plan to add thousands of homes around Alcester. Where are all these new residents supposed to work? How are they supposed to get there? Where are their children going to school?

Yes

Representation ID: 99510

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Diane Wilson

If within their current boundaries, using existing sites and brown land.

Yes

Representation ID: 99563

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Afolabi Okeshola

N/A

No

Representation ID: 99747

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Welford on Avon Parish Council

MIS.2 - Long Marston Airfield

MIS.3 - Long Marston Rail Innovation Centre

These two proposals are unsustainable given the inadequaci=y of the road infrastructure around Stratford Upon Avon. There weight limited bridges at Welford on Avon and Bidford on Avon and the Clopton Brdige in Stratford is at capacity now.

No new development south of the River Avon until new river crossings are established.

Yes

Representation ID: 100315

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

These areas will be crucial in delivering the employment for residents in this south Warwickshire area.

No

Representation ID: 100708

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Leanne Matthews

The development of major investment sites at Long Marston Airfield (MIS.2) and Long Marston Rail Innovation Centre (MIS.3) should be made dependent on the improvement of highway infrastructure in the local area and to and around Stratford.
Improvements will be needed to Station Road to provide access to the Rail Innovation Centre and new housing development.
Employment land and a local centre and town centre uses at the Long Marston Airfield site as previously approved is supported.

No

Representation ID: 100973

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Stacey Wall

The current state of Station Road does not provide sufficient capacity or safety for the volume of traffic expected with the growth of the rail innovation centre and growth of Meon vale village

No

Representation ID: 101256

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Adrian Summers on behalf of the Summers Family

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

It is accepted that strategic level growth must be encouraged and accommodated but the current consultation appears pre-occupied with this. It is telling that there is no policy related to non-strategic employment growth. It is also not appropriate for the plan to direct non-strategic growth to strategic allocations since this is not likely to be attractive to many SMEs.

Other

Representation ID: 101284

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Chris Clews

Interconnected with previous comments.

No

Representation ID: 101594

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Vincent Rollason

This development is not good for the area

No

Representation ID: 101802

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Crump

MIS 2 and MIS 3 have been presented in rather vague terms that suggest that bets are being very much hedged pending future stages in growth strategy and the evolution of the Plan. This is sustainability in reverse. How can it be argued that a site is sustainable for housing and industrial development if a wait and see approach is adopted? What research has been done in relation to businesses who may wish to set up on the Airfield, for example, and how many potential employees would be living on site?? Do MIS3 workers live close to that site?

Yes

Representation ID: 101826

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Isabel Collins

i agree

Yes

Representation ID: 101867

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Walkden

These sites are more logical options in terms of access to employment developing infrastructure and preventing additional pressure on existing towns.

No

Representation ID: 101951

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

The Parish Council supports the concept of Major Investment Sites (MIS) but seeks clarity on their definition and relation to Policies 6.1 and 6.2. Policy 6.1 is too limited, naming only three sites, while 6.2 excludes many viable locations identified in 6.3. The Council disagrees with restricting strategic logistics at MIS.1, as M40 Jn12 improvements make it suitable for B8 uses. Additionally, a new MIS should be designated in the southeast and southwest of Stratford-Upon-Avon, where sites have been offered, to better support local employment and economic growth.

Yes

Representation ID: 102230

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Doug Wallace

While I broadly agree, I have reservations about any intense development of Wellesbourne Airfield area. There is inadequate transportation and road infrastructure in this area. Wellesbourne is basically a small village served by small roads. Any sizable developments retail/dwellings or industry would put more pressure on the limited road system.