Yes

Representation ID: 96904

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: 96919

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Jeffery

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 97151

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Tysoe Parish Council

Yes.

Yes

Representation ID: 97728

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Jeffery

N/A

Other

Representation ID: 98534

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Holly Farm Business Park

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

HFBP provides this type of accommodation and expansion proposals designed to enable provision of larger units and accommodation to encourage companies to grow whist staying part of the business community. The removal of Holly Farm Business Park from consideration in the plan is inexplicable. In the Policy Direction, the suggestion that larger sites should provide some smaller accommodation seems naïve, focussed again towards bigger sites and developers. It also appears to be equating the provision of business accommodation with affordable housing policies. Employment and housing are different and need to be treated in accordance with economic reality.

Yes

Representation ID: 98569

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: SupremeTech

Agent: Delta Planning

SupremeTech supports Policy Direction 19. It is important that the SWLP recognises the need to provide employment development which can cater for all needs, including the SME market and this can be achieved by also allocating non-strategic sites to help deliver this provision. By allocating Land off Princes Drive, Kenilworth, as a logical expansion to the existing industrial estate, this will contribute towards meeting the local employment needs for the plan period and will deliver much needed SME units in a highly sustainable location

Please refer to our full response for further details.

Yes

Representation ID: 99062

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: MPTL

Agent: Harris Lamb

Yes, there is demand for business units of a variety of sizes across the plan area. It should be noted that Stoneleigh Park is capable of providing a variety of different building types and sizes. Indeed, Stoneleigh Park includes a number of existing buildings that could be re-purposed or reused to help support economic growth. These can be supported by large scale employment development on the Kingswood Business Park next to the A46 junction.

Yes

Representation ID: 99355

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Summers Holdings Ltd

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Agree, it is important to support a range of business units and affordable employment space, however to ensure certainty in the provision of varied employment floor space, the allocation of sites for affordable business space and move-on units should not have been delayed to the Reg.19 version of the SWLP.

Yes

Representation ID: 99536

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Diane Wilson

If Using existing unused sites, not developing new.

Other

Representation ID: 100439

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Cooper

Small units for smaller and new businesses must be made available.

Yes

Representation ID: 101218

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: AC Lloyd - Sites 64 and 301

Agent: Delta Planning

AC Lloyd supports the approach that the SWLP proposes to adopt as it recognises the need for a range of employment unit sizes including smaller and medium size units. It is important that the SWLP recognises the need to provide employment development which can cater for all needs, and this can be achieved by also allocating non-strategic sites to help deliver this provision. By allocating land south of Leamington Road, Southam (Site 301), as a logical expansion to the existing industrial estate, this will contribute towards meeting the local employment needs for the plan period in a highly sustainable location.

No

Representation ID: 101224

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Chris Clews

Previous comments relate to this approach.
Where , what size, what tenure, what concessions ... who decides?

No

Representation ID: 101255

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Chris Clews

Supporting must not become subsidizing which ultimately fails.

Other

Representation ID: 101275

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Adrian Summers on behalf of the Summers Family

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Claybank Farm (Site ref: 517) would be capable of providing precisely this type of accommodation. In these circumstances the removal of Site 517 from consideration in the plan is inexplicable.

In the Policy Direction, the suggestion that larger sites should provide some smaller accommodation seems naïve, focussed again towards bigger sites and developers. It also appears to be equating the provision of business accommodation with affordable housing policies. Employment and housing are different and need to be treated in accordance with economic reality.

Other

Representation ID: 101592

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Webb Family

Agent: Delta Planning

The Webb family generally support Policy Direction 19 subject to details in our full response.

No

Representation ID: 101619

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Vincent Rollason

This development is not good for the area

Yes

Representation ID: 101946

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Bishop’s Tachbrook Parish Council supports this draft policy direction.

Yes

Representation ID: 102072

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Joseph Dimambro-Denson

We need where possible to really mix up the uses of our places, bussiness and commerce units next to houses to keep places vibrant throughout the day.

Yes

Representation ID: 102278

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Doug Wallace

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 103202

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Currie

Local employment centers and hubs are crucial for local public transport and zero carbon objectives. However, this does not mean local warehouse shipping/transport hub facilities that add no value to the communities.

Yes

Representation ID: 103972

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Norrie

Seems reasonable

Yes

Representation ID: 104300

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Neal Appleton

Supporting affordable business space is a great way to help the rural economy diversify.

No

Representation ID: 104513

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Ann Colley

Is there a need/requirement to provide more business areas or will they be left empty?

Yes

Representation ID: 104725

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Dunning

You must greatly improve active travel infrastructure and public transport infrastructure everywhere to support these.

Paint is not good cycling infrastructure.
Buses are not good public transport infrastructure.

Yes

Representation ID: 105771

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Wates Developments Ltd

Agent: Savills

Wates Developments support draft policy direction 19, which focuses on providing a variety of unit sizes within employment sites for start-up and expanding businesses. The development at Coppington Farm, Wellesbourne, part of the SG15 Strategic Growth Option, will offer both smaller grow-on units to benefit the nearby University of Warwick Wellesbourne Innovation Campus and larger industrial/storage units to fulfil local demand. Its proximity to the M40, about 3 miles away via the A429, enhances its ability to accommodate the diverse needs of various occupiers.

Yes

Representation ID: 107040

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Coventry and Warwickshire Chamber of Commerce

The CWCC strongly welcomes this Policy Direction 19 and the recognition of the need to maintain a balanced supply of employment premises throughout the plan area. Moreover, it also supports the idea of undertaking further work to encourage the provision of “affordable” business space. The operation of the property market currently means that most new employment allocations are targeted at the upper end of the rental and sales property markets. While this provides additional space and assists the overall market operations it often leaves local shortages at the lower end of the market. This, as is recognised may hamper the growth and expansion of existing
businesses.

The CWCC welcomes the policy initiative here to encourage an element of smaller units
and “affordable” commercial space as part of much larger employment allocations. At the same time, it recognises that such units cannot be provided in all instances on the
larger employment schemes. The proposed research and additional work could look in more detail at the viability issues that underpin the provision of larger schemes.
There may be merit in further consideration of the potential “repurposing” of surplus and empty retail units in town and village centres. The plan makers might, for example, consider the inclusion of a specific provision to encourage the diversification and repurposing of former retail units which because of their location or because of
changing retail trends mean that the buildings become redundant as retail space. This could in some circumstances provide relatively low cost accommodation for small businesses . In the right locations this would not undermine the overall retail function of an area.

No

Representation ID: 108002

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: CEG Land Promotion III (UK) Limited

Agent: Nexus Planning

CEG have serious concerns regarding the implementation of Draft Policy Direction 19 on the delivery of large scale employment sites. Whilst well-intended, the requirement to provide affordable units, which are below the market rate, has no basis in national policy. The Council justifies this by referencing paragraph 85 the NPPF which states that “Policies… should create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt.”
This is considered a misguided interpretation of policy. Whilst CEG support the need for provision of smaller units to address demand from SME’s, it is considered that this would be best be addressed by allocating specific sites with the required mixes to address this demand. Expecting larger sites to accommodate such uses needlessly risks the delivery and viability of site. Moreover, there is a high degree of uncertainty of how effective this policy mechanism would be in creating more affordable space. CEG consider that the lack of affordable units is partly a result of a significant undersupply of modern, well located, sustainable employment space. Therefore, in the first instance the SWLP should be looking to boost employment land supply to satisfy this need. It is therefore requested that the Council revisit and remove this policy and instead allocate specific sites to meet the identified need.

Other

Representation ID: 108920

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council

In principle, support the aspiration in the emerging policy direction to provide a range of sizes of employment development (small, medium and large). However, it is recommended that the policy also encourages employment development within/adjacent to town centre locations where possible e.g. offices, to support and add to the mix of uses within town centres and to respond to the needs identified in the supporting justification (Section 6.8) to the policy direction.