Yes

Representation ID: 93806

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Warwick District Green Party

-Yes, however a more urgent and comprehensive approach to renewable energy generation is required, including wind as well as solar power.
-Note the restrictions in NPPF on onshore wind schemes was already cancelled via policy statement in the July of 2024.
-We particularly support solar farms on lower-quality agricultural land (grades 3b-5).
-We strongly agree with general point c) i.e. there needs to be a minimum percentage of community ownership for all large-scale renewable energy projects.

Yes

Representation ID: 93899

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Beverley Comley

Any development should also include solar panels as a key part of sustainability- whether as part of site or on the roof of homes construction.

Yes

Representation ID: 93947

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Councillor Bill Gifford

Yes I agree.

No

Representation ID: 94092

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Stuart Mace

There are growing concerns within the insurance industry as to solar installations on buildings; the authorities should take in to consideration the long term implications for insurance of properties as well as the fire risks associated with solar, long-term maintenance requirements, and land re-instatement when the solar installation reaches the end of its serviceable life.

No

Representation ID: 94336

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Sanderson

Energy is a pre-requisite for our societal model. There is a presumption in this policy that large scale solar is a at ground level. All industrial, logistics and hotel developments should carry large scale solar implementations. Large scale solar should be retrofitted to all such developments.

No

Representation ID: 94386

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Waters

Government policy will make this policy meaningless as it will be overridden as is already the case at Knightcote/Bishops Itchington

Yes

Representation ID: 94876

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford-upon-Avon Town Transport Group

Yes

Yes

Representation ID: 94956

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Kineton Parish Council

Yes, insofar as it relates to electricity generation.
Experience with an application for a bio-digestion, (claimed to be producing renewable energy, gas) leads to the recommendation for wording of D to be more explicit. Furthermore for biomass an application should only be submitted and validated once the proposal has been assessed and confirmed as a renewable [gas] production facility by a suitable independent body eg the renewable accreditation body. This ensures that:
1 Considerable time is not wasted assessing the proposal against planning policy criteria
2 the LPA can justify any carbon reduction claims without further examination and cost

No

Representation ID: 95233

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Edward Wilson

The areas shown and extent of the solar panels will decimate are agricultural areas in pursuit of an extremely poor unproductive and unreliable technology. We will lose food growing capacity and will destroy wildlife habitat. This is madness.

Yes

Representation ID: 95726

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Amanda Dyhouse

N/A

Other

Representation ID: 95803

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Shelagh Marshall

Renewable energy is good, blighting the South Warwickshire rural landscape is not. New build both Commercial and Residential should be required to install roof mounted panels.
The grid infrastructure should be improved so that new solar installations are not grouped around suitable grid connections where there is capacity. Planners should recognise the reality of Deciduous trees and hedges used as visual mitigation loose their leaves for six months of the year.
Solar Sites must be considered in conjunction with other developments which cumulatively change the character of the landscape for generations to come.

No

Representation ID: 95860

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Carter

This policy does not pay sufficient attention to the protection of the existing environment. It will lead to a proliferation of sites amounting to the industrialisation of large areas of open countryside.
There should be no support in principle for solar energy or wind energy on particular sites. Each application should be considered on its merits.
All renewable energy proposals should be subject to thorough tests of both the individual and the cumulative visual and landscape impact of the proposals. The wording should be strengthened to make it clear that this applies to solar as well as wind energy.

Yes

Representation ID: 95935

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Tesh

Yes

No

Representation ID: 95997

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Marshall

Ground mounted Solar pv is centered predominently in the north of the plan area which gives rise to over development. Development follows grid routes which have available capacity leading to linear concentrations and the visual blight of swathes of rural countryside. The interactive map does not show existing sites or or ones where there is an application in hand. The full effect of the impact of sites is diluted. The cumulative effect when added to other developments eg. SG15 SG16 and X1 sees entire villages like Ashorne and Conservation village Newbold Pacey absorbed into the Leamington Spa connurbation.

Yes

Representation ID: 96112

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Horsfield

1. Strong Support. A 'presumption in favour' would give greater certainty to developers (any size) to do all the work for an application
2 Thresholds in power output for when benefits would be expected
3. ARUP report omits getting information from Western Power on network capacity.
4. Making reference to new overhead power lines?

Yes

Representation ID: 96330

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Southam Town Council

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

Yes

Representation ID: 96520

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Shipston Town Council

There is very limited comment or policy on how wind energy can effect sensitive landscape areas, particularly in the South of the area (Feldons and Cotswold fringe).

Yes

Representation ID: 96756

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: John Dinnie

Agreed

Other

Representation ID: 96912

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Jeffery

As long as section (b) is adhered to

Yes

Representation ID: 96971

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’) support this draft policy but practical implementation is key.
All renewable energy initiatives should be carefully assessed to ensure that they do not damage the heritage of our towns and villages, even if such developments will provide community benefits.

Yes

Representation ID: 97124

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Victoria Alcock

All developments, no matter the size must have renewable energy as part of it

No

Representation ID: 97160

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Tysoe Parish Council

General c) is unacceptable. This allows for the "bribing" of communities by energy installers. Energy storage should not be considered as it allows installations that are not connected to the Grid.

Yes

Representation ID: 97320

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Peter Lewin

I appreciate the intention to protect good agricultural land since it is becoming ever more important to ensure we produce as much as possible of our food.

Other

Representation ID: 97750

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Brenda Stewart

In general I do agree very much with this approach, with the proviso that it may sometimes be good to have wind generators even if some people affected are not totally happy with them.

Yes

Representation ID: 97794

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Jeffery

Subject to section (b) being strictly observed.

No

Representation ID: 98299

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Barry Elkington

Not completely. Ground mounted solar energy should only be allowed on Brownfield land or Very Low-quality agricultural land (Grades 4 and 5). It should not be allowed on any higher rated agricultural land (Grades 1, 2, and 3). There should be a much greater emphasis on rooftop solar, car parks, etc. Also promotion of individual property use of solar/battery installations.

Yes

Representation ID: 98932

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Liberal Democrat Group (Stratford District councillors)

I agree with the approach

No

Representation ID: 99065

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: MPTL

Agent: Harris Lamb

No, one of the key issues underpinning renewable energy generation is the availability of a grid connection. The fact that the site is previously developed, or low quality agricultural land, will have no impact on the delivery of the scheme if there is not a viable grid connection available. The policy should recognise this.

The policy should specifically support renewable energy generation schemes provided alongside new development. For example, Call for Sites submission in respect of SG02 – Stoneleigh Park Employment Group includes a large area of renewable energy generation that can help offset the energy requirements of the development.

Other

Representation ID: 99299

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr James Kennedy

Given the need to generate cheap energy as well take climate action, a more urgent and comprehensive approach to renewable energy generation is required, including wind as well as solar power. We should promote both renewable energies and low carbon energy proposals is backed by the new NPPF. As indicated in the Justification section, it specifies that:
· Local Plans should identify areas for renewable and low carbon energy sources, and supporting infrastructure
· Decision makers determining applications should support planning applications for all forms of renewable and low carbon development.

No

Representation ID: 99551

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Diane Wilson

X