Yes

Representation ID: 85979

Received: 11/01/2025

Respondent: Susan Archer

This is very important for future generations

Yes

Representation ID: 86011

Received: 11/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kate Harris

It is essential that this policy approach is asserted and enforced

Yes

Representation ID: 86124

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Sandy McCaskie

N/A

No

Representation ID: 86273

Received: 18/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jacky Atkinson

Where will the drinking water supply and sewage treatment capacity for the new housing developments come from? Will the full environmental cost of the new developments be taken into account, along with the environmental impacts of current construction schemes, especially HS2, and recently completed schemes?

No

Representation ID: 86311

Received: 20/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Nash

In practice this is unlikely to work

Yes

Representation ID: 86336

Received: 21/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Noel Davis

all should be protected

Yes

Representation ID: 86359

Received: 22/01/2025

Respondent: Professor David Hardiman

Preserving green space is of huge importance, given the fact that there is a massive amount of development taking place in South Warwickshire at present. This includes not just building over a lot of farmland but also HS2, with its swathe of destruction in a belt across the area. This section 36 sets out excellent reasons why green belt land must be preserved. What is does not address is the issue of loss of fertile farmland and the dwindling of our ability to feed ourselves from local produce as a result.

Yes

Representation ID: 86418

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Daphne Tilley

We are losing too many habitats as well as vital farmland. A growing population cannot continue to import vast amounts of foodstuff, which is most certainly not eco friendly. We need ALL our farmland.

Other

Representation ID: 86508

Received: 27/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sylvia Ackroyd

Lapworth and surrounding areas would greatly impacted by any development as it is a place teeming with local flora and fauna notwithstanding a place of magnificent historical interest.

No

Representation ID: 86615

Received: 28/01/2025

Respondent: Rachel Smith

You are making it extremely difficult for Shipston residents to express their views. The meeting at the leisure centre today was an absolute joke. The land being discussed for the 1600 houses over the river is already owned by a developer and he already has plans drawn up. This appears to be a box ticking exercise by the council when decisions have already been made. Very disappointed

No

Representation ID: 86698

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Bridgewater

There has been an overwhelming support for Wildbelts. To dismiss this is arrogant and defeats the purpose of consultations such as this.

You should incorporate the Wildbelt attributes into you plan.

No

Representation ID: 86945

Received: 31/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Arthur Hogan-Fleming

Best way to protect = no more development

Yes

Representation ID: 87059

Received: 03/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Judith Corless

The protection of our countryside, green areas, native species of plants, animals, birds and insects is vital. All new housing/employment builds should pay proper regard to this. Not just provide a few bird boxes. There should be nature corridors within the builds.

Yes

Representation ID: 87095

Received: 03/02/2025

Respondent: S Gardner

More protection to new spaces is needed.

Yes

Representation ID: 87428

Received: 08/02/2025

Respondent: Cllr Andrew Day

None

Yes

Representation ID: 87602

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: mrs susan morris

I agree

Yes

Representation ID: 88541

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kathryn Lawry Kennedy

The mandate to protect, conserve and enhance must be non-negotiable and in no circumstances should offsetting be allowed. The importance of protected sites for natural flood management where appropriate should be highlighted, cross-referenced to draft Policy J in chapter 7 on flood risks. A green / blue map identifying all existing sites, options for new sites and connectivity should form part of the plan. For example, Finham Brook in Kenilworth from upstream of the castle across Kenilworth down to the wetland area to be created under the HS2 bridge over the Brook.

Yes

Representation ID: 88799

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Erin Williams

Yes. The mandate to protect, conserve and enhance must be non-negotiable and in no circumstances should offsetting be allowed. The importance of protected sites for natural flood management where appropriate should be highlighted, cross-referenced to draft Policy J in chapter 7 on flood risks. A green / blue map identifying all existing sites, options for new sites and connectivity should form part of the plan. For example, Finham Brook in Kenilworth from upstream of the castle across Kenilworth down to the wetland area to be created under the HS2 bridge over the Brook.

Yes

Representation ID: 88845

Received: 18/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ida Marjorie Brown

Agree

Other

Representation ID: 88854

Received: 18/02/2025

Respondent: Jennifer Collett Wright

In sum, I strongly disagree with the proposal to build between Cubbington and Lillington, because in this location we have already suffered increased traffic and irreplaceable losses due to HS2 destruction - valuable arable farmland, wildlife habitats, ancient woodland, veteran trees, and access to tranquil countryside walks via public rights of way.

Yes

Representation ID: 88866

Received: 18/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Lucy Hartley

All good. Reduction in use of poison in other areas could be mentioned as this has a detrimental effect on all through the food chain.

Yes

Representation ID: 89090

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

i agree

Yes

Representation ID: 89130

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sara Bird

agree

Yes

Representation ID: 89170

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mr nigel Freeth

land owners should not be allowed to clear small tree and brash areas in the hope of getting planning consent as is the case on the Alcester Captains Hill proposed development area

Yes

Representation ID: 89172

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mr nigel Freeth

but dont build on it so the area remains protected for habitats for nature

Yes

Representation ID: 89218

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Suzanna Hughes

We should also protect established wildlife corridors connected to Nature Reserves and vital wildlife sites. Need to consider the damage to these sensitive sites from noise and light pollution as well as the destruction of ecosystems and habitats as a result of inappropriate development locations.

Yes

Representation ID: 89280

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Jon Knight

This would seem a vital part of the plan given that the UK is one of the least biodiverse and ecologically bereft countries in Europe.

Other

Representation ID: 89325

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Wendy Bannerman

Protecting sensitive sites whilst balancing that with public access to outdoor space requires maintenance of PROW and other shared paths as well as clear and consistent waymarking.

Yes

Representation ID: 89427

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Barrie Hayles

Warwickshire's rich and varied landscape needs the highest levels of protection against the pressure of over-development which has altered much of the County already.

Yes

Representation ID: 89570

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Emily Carleton

This is non-negotiable! Areas for natural flood management are particularly important such as Finham Brook.