Yes

Representation ID: 94904

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Kineton Parish Council

Yes. Furthermore we suggest that small scale local commercial facilities (eg offices and workshops) should be included within this category/policy to protect employment and enterprise

Yes

Representation ID: 95147

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Susan Frawley

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 95226

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Edward Wilson

This makes good sense if the local consultation is respected and implemented.

No

Representation ID: 95644

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jon Redhead

This is a very contentious issue, and does not fully appreciate the value of Green Belt land. By removing it from the Green Belt status that it was awarded in the first place, it is a vague attempt to justify destruction of a communities naturally educational wildlife site, which can not be truly regenerated. It has been there for many hundreds of years.

Yes

Representation ID: 95711

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Amanda Dyhouse

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 95930

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Tesh

Yes. The timescale stipulations, ie a minimum of 12 months active marketing, is to be applauded

Yes

Representation ID: 96014

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Marshall

I agree.

Yes

Representation ID: 96325

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Southam Town Council

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

Yes

Representation ID: 96524

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Shipston Town Council

The timescale stipulations, i.e. minimum 12 months active marketing, is to be applauded.

Yes

Representation ID: 96712

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: John Dinnie

Any attempt to change the use of a community facility should first trigger the registration of the facility as an asset of community value, with the resultant protections.

Yes

Representation ID: 96721

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs G Wood

Essential to preserve as much and as many rural facilities as possible. Culture and character is as important as growth

Yes

Representation ID: 96915

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Alcester Town Council

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’) strongly supports this draft policy – community facilities are essential to create thriving communities and to engage and integrate residents into a community.

Yes

Representation ID: 96917

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Jeffery

N/A

Other

Representation ID: 97032

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Roger Horsfall

Where is the evidence of community facility protection? Despite being an area increasingly surrounded by large industrial investment and a new housing development, Baginton has no school, no doctors surgery and very recently lost it village shop and post office. Monies and plans for such infrastructure are not forthcoming.

Yes

Representation ID: 97153

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Tysoe Parish Council

Yes

Yes

Representation ID: 97727

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Jeffery

N/A

Other

Representation ID: 98555

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Holly Farm Business Park

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Community facilities and services contribute to the sustainability of communities, and that planning should enable the retention and development of accessible local services and community facilities, however, the wording does not encourage the development of accessible local services and community facilities and its remit should be broadened appropriately in situations where the paucity of community facilities may unduly restrict other development opportunities. At HFBP its potential expansion could support complementary housing development and facilities and services, including buses, locally possibly in the form of a new settlement based around the former RAF Honiley airfield.

No

Representation ID: 99041

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: (1) AG Family Trust 2024 & (2) N. Holdsworth

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Community facilities and services contribute to the sustainability of communities, and that planning should enable the retention and development of accessible local services and community facilities, however, the wording does not encourage the development of accessible local services and community facilities and its remit should be broadened appropriately in situations where the paucity of community facilities may unduly restrict other development opportunities. In the case of land to the east of Station Lane, Kingswood, this has the potential to help sustain and justify the expansion of local services and facilities.

Yes

Representation ID: 99333

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Garry Rollason

I agree with the draft policy.

Yes

Representation ID: 99543

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Diane Wilson

X

Yes

Representation ID: 99764

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford District Council Green Group

Especially in relation to county farms - they should always be kept as farms, as they offer a really precious resource for new entrant farmers.
Especially in relation to REFID 552 - Shipston recycling centre.

Yes

Representation ID: 100336

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

NA

Yes

Representation ID: 100445

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Cooper

Community facilities must be protected.

Yes

Representation ID: 100523

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr peter spreadbury

Times change. Large empty retail and other buildings should be released for other uses, especially low cost housing.

Yes

Representation ID: 101220

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Chris Clews

Community facilities are for communities - are they thriving nowadays or dwindling.
If the latter the why provide facilities for a declining number of people.
True community has very few material requirements ... just communication (NOT solely social media!).

Other

Representation ID: 101282

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Adrian Summers on behalf of the Summers Family

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

It is noted that this policy confirms that community facilities and services contribute to the sustainability of communities, and that planning policies and decisions should enable the retention and development of accessible local services and community facilities, however, the wording of the policy does not encourage the development of accessible local services and community facilities and therefore its remit should be broadened appropriately. This is particularly important in situations where community facilities or lack thereof may be restricting other development opportunities.

Other

Representation ID: 101456

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Bart Slob

I agree with Draft Policy C but believe it should be more robust in protecting key community assets. Safeguarding community facilities like village halls, medical centres, and pubs is essential for maintaining social cohesion and the wellbeing of local communities. The viability assessment should be thorough and transparent, with clearer criteria for what constitutes a "realistic prospect" of continued use. The policy should prioritise re-use or relocation options for facilities at risk, ensuring the community still benefits. Additionally, community engagement in the process is crucial to ensure local needs are met and prevent the loss of important services.

No

Representation ID: 101626

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Vincent Rollason

This development is not good for the y

Yes

Representation ID: 101754

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: The Theatres Trust

We welcome inclusion of this policy, which is broadly in line with our recommendation at the previous stage. To further enhance robustness and effectiveness we suggest either revising the wording of part 1 or 2 or adding to explanatory text to seek demonstration of whether a facility could be made to be viable through alternative model of operation, for example community ownership.

Yes

Representation ID: 101945

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

In general, Bishop’s Tachbrook Parish Council supports this policy and strongly believes that community facilities should be carefully protected from redevelopment into alternative uses.
Wording should be added to the policy specifically around the site owner being able to demonstrate actively working with the community to find a solution whereby the community acquires the facility.
Also, the wording relating to similar alternative facilities being available and accessible to the local community needs to be strengthened and made more specific. For example, the need to get a bus to an alternative small local shop would not meet the test.