Yes

Representation ID: 96128

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Chris Young

I support the Council's strategy to safeguard aviation at Wellesbourne in line with AS.9. In my view it is vital to preserve this precious, vibrant community of businesses, visitors and aviation enthusiasts, especially with the closure of Coventry Airport. How are we going to inspire and enthuse future generations to pursue careers in aviations for the benefit of the country? I consider the plans recently presented by Gladman fall well short of what would be acceptable for safe, viable continued development of the airfield.

Yes

Representation ID: 96244

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Janakavtar thiara

Dear sirs/ madames,
From the outset the core strategy for wellesbourne airfield by Stratford upon Avon district council is to retain wellesbourne airfield as an airfield, why try and change this outlook? wellesbourne airfield forms part of UK heritage,provides employment,provides a focal point for many people flying in to visit the area or visiting by car etc.The heritage could be well advanced for example recreating the world war 2 control tower building , enhance the museum,modernise the aerodrome.
Thank you

Yes

Representation ID: 96321

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Southam Town Council

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

Yes

Representation ID: 96563

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Shipston Town Council

Agree

Yes

Representation ID: 96602

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Colin Wyatt

I support the continued use of aviation functions at Wellesbourne airfield. This is especially important with the planned loss of facilities at the Coventry airport site. This is inline with the governments National infrastructure policy including aerodromes.

Yes

Representation ID: 96617

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr JOSEPH ROBERTS

I strongly wish to see the current airfield at Wellesbourne continue. I have lived in Leamington Spa Warwickshire for over 30 years and am using the airfields facilities and Flying Schools. Having served in the Royal Air Force I also wish to preserve the history of the airfield and am keen to see it thrive as an aviation centre for the local communities. This is especially important as Coventry Airfield is set to close. I would personally like to see the preservation of the existing runway 18 36 building a new shorter runway is a risk to existing business operations.

Yes

Representation ID: 96697

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: John Dinnie

Yes

Yes

Representation ID: 96888

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Alcester Town Council

This is agreed by 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’).

Yes

Representation ID: 96921

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Jeffery

Yes, yes, yes

No

Representation ID: 97027

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Roger Horsfall

Airfields are an easy target for developers despite a range of government studies and documents proclaiming the importance of GA airports as internal transport corridors that also provide open space and ecological benefits. It is incomprehensible that successful airport related businesses are put in jeopardy and that Coventry airport should be destroyed for what is proving to be very speculative purposes.

Yes

Representation ID: 97143

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Tysoe Parish Council

Yes

Yes

Representation ID: 97410

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Teresa Hayes

IF there is a proven need for development - only Brownfield sites should be used - thereby allowing Green Belt to REMAIN AS GREEN BELT

Yes

Representation ID: 97796

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Jeffery

Definitely agree

Other

Representation ID: 98519

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Holly Farm Business Park

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

The potential for growth at former airfields should be considered including that at the former RAF Honiley airfield. JLR have a facility on this site and the existing Holly Farm Business Park and all of the land identified for potential expansion is within the former airfield. Although the land lies within the Green Belt its brownfield status and weak contribution to purposes a), b) and d) of Green Belt means it should be actively considered.

Yes

Representation ID: 98612

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Christopher Bailey

Whilst I do not agree with the closure of Coventry Airfield for the purposes of enabling the building of a gigafactory, if Coventry Airfield is to close then extra attention should be paid to the existing airfields (particularly Wellesbourne) to ensure that aviation activities can continue, and that traffic that currently uses Coventry can be appropriately accommodated at other nearby airfields. Any developments permitted at Wellesbourne should not affect the current range of aviation activities that take place there.

Other

Representation ID: 99246

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: 99735

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford District Council Green Group

to help the district towards net zero, we don't need any aviation provision, and all this brownfield land could be used for mixed development (housing, employment, and community assets)

No

Representation ID: 99762

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Welford on Avon Parish Council

Atherstone Airfield is not a sustainble growth area given the inadequacies of the road infrasturcture.

New river crossings are needed to the West and Esast of Stratford before this site in brought forward.

Yes

Representation ID: 100125

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Adrian Parsons

Again broadly speaking I agree with the approach, and specifically to the proposals for Wellesbourne Airfield.

Yes

Representation ID: 100320

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

NA

Yes

Representation ID: 100799

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Wellesbourne and Walton Parish Council

Wellesbourne airfield: it is very important that the flying functions of the airfield are safeguarded. Whilst we recognise that the site will be used for other meters including industrial development it s vital that this is not done at the cost of the flying functions. The preference from development of the site should be for research and be allied to the University Campus close by. There is little need for further storage and distribution units when some of those already in the village are empty. The additional development should not occur before the runway is in situ.

Yes

Representation ID: 101031

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Turner

The Airfield is important for the various activities that need the runway, but also the associated businesses associated with maintaining and administering flying activities, so these activities should be protected along with those directly involved with flying.

Yes

Representation ID: 101482

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr James Wilby

Any development at Wellesbourne airfield needs to be completed in way that provides a safe training airfield, with sufficient runways and space around them. Wellesbourne must be protected for aviation use as last licences airfield in Warwickshire.

No

Representation ID: 101601

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Vincent Rollason

This development is not good for the area

Other

Representation ID: 101630

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Dominic O'Reirdan

Wellesbourne airfield, in my view should remain as-is. There has been significant development in and around it over years gone by. The runways should remain as they are due to safety and operational concerns. Post Covid there are multiple office / research/light industrial areas available in the county and nearby.

Yes

Representation ID: 101774

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Alexander Metcalf-Penny

I believe it is important to maintain Wellesbourne Airfields primary function as a midland hub for General Aviation. The local residence rely on the Airfield for both business and social purposes and maintaining this facility for current and future aviation enthusiasts and professionals should be in the councils best interests. I believe further development of the land for industrial use should be avoided where possible, however if this is necessary for the continuation of Wellesbourne Airfields primary function then so be it.

Yes

Representation ID: 101805

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Crump

This is instructive, as it demonstrates that there is no specific policy for employment usage in relation to Long Marston Airfield, and thus this begs the question as to how the local planning authority expects jobs will be created there to enable new residents to travel to work internally, without leaving the site and thus render it sustainable from a transportation perspective. Furthermore, there is clearly no identified need for additional office spaces in the Stratford District which again raises the question of what type of employment provision is contemplated for MIS2 and MIS3.

Yes

Representation ID: 101949

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Bishop’s Tachbrook Parish Council supports this Draft Policy Direction.

Yes

Representation ID: 102263

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Doug Wallace

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 102536

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Chris Thrussell

I fully support the proposed policy for Wellesbourne Airfield. Enhancing the facilities, including the ATS unit, aviation services, hangarage, refreshments, and viewing areas, will significantly benefit the community and aviation enthusiasts. However, it is crucial that the core aviation function of the airfield is safeguarded and not disrupted by any future development. The airfield's aviation operations must remain a priority to ensure the continued success and safety of the site. I believe that with careful planning, we can achieve a balance that allows for both the enhancement of the airfield's facilities and the introduction of new employment opportunities.