No

Representation ID: 89640

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Simon Cook

I agree completely with Warwickshire Wildlife Trust. The policy does not provide enough detail on how important environmental assets will be protected and enhanced, especially when a large number of the allocations are next to and even covering important designated Local Wildlife Sites.

No

Representation ID: 89708

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Graham Bamford

It is a complete nonsense to suggest that building new settlements in the countryside can somehow protect habitat and species. In and around Warwick in areas such as Hatton, we have an abundance of natural wildlife including deer, small rodents, grass snakes, woodpeckers, birds of prey - such as owls, buzzards, kestrels, sparrowhawks, red kites. The council is clearly ignorant of the need to protect such habitats. A small "corridor" here and there is laughable,

No

Representation ID: 89774

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Sutton

I support biodiversity by not building on green belt land. The plans surrounding the expansion of Alcester are 100% based on building on fields. How will the destruction and tarmacing of green areas be in any way meeting the protections of habitats, to suggest this is possible is rediculous. Want to protect the environment? Stop building over green belt areas!

Yes

Representation ID: 89845

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lina Rodriguez

Should also protect established wildlife corridors and greenbelt areas that sit close to nature reserves

Yes

Representation ID: 89865

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Daphne Davis

Need to protect wildlife from Light and noise pollution and destruction of habitats.

No

Representation ID: 89870

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Emily Buxton-Woodcock

The policy does not provide enough detail on how important environmental assets will be protected and enhanced, especially when a large number of the allocations are next to and even covering important designated Local Wildlife Sites. Stop destroying our planet.

Yes

Representation ID: 89896

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Dr Stephen Browett

Completely agree.

No

Representation ID: 89928

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mr O Johnson

No. The policy does not provide enough detail on how important environmental assets will be protected and enhanced, especially when a large number of the allocations are next to and even covering important designated Local Wildlife Sites.

Yes

Representation ID: 90022

Received: 22/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Fiona Macvie

It is also vital to protect wildlife corridors, not just discrete areas, and to consider the impact of noise and light pollution.

No

Representation ID: 90068

Received: 22/02/2025

Respondent: Catherine Hewson

The policy does not provide enough detail on how important environmental assets will be protected and enhanced, especially when a large number of the allocations are next to and even covering important designated Local Wildlife Sites.

Yes

Representation ID: 90258

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Maria Giblin

Clopton Quarter SG18 is greenbelt and has wildlife. There is a pack of Roe Deer that have habitat in the field behind Buckingham Way. We should protect and make this nature reserve linked to Welcombe hills.

Yes

Representation ID: 90259

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Dean Giblin

We should also protect established wildlife corridors connected to Nature Reserves and vital wildlife sites. It is crucial to consider the damage to these sensitive sites from noise and light pollution, as well as the destruction of ecosystems and habitats due to inappropriate development locations. Additionally, we should implement measures to mitigate these impacts and ensure the preservation of these vital environments for future generations.

No

Representation ID: 90315

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Liz Stone

The policy does not provide enough detail on how important environmental assets will be protected and enhanced, especially when a large number of the allocations are next to and even covering important designated Local Wildlife Sites.

No

Representation ID: 90336

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Julia Gibson

The policy does not provide enough detail on how important environmental assets will be protected and enhanced, especially when a large number of the allocations are next to and even covering important designated Local Wildlife Sites.

Yes

Representation ID: 90446

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sheetal Tailor

The policy should also endeavour to protect established wildlife areas connected to nature reserves and vital wildlife sites (such as Welcome Hills).

Other

Representation ID: 90520

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Dr Louise Stewart

Yes these sites should be protected however the proposal for building 6700 new homes at Bearley, Wilmcote and Pathlow will destroy green belt land, agricultural land (increasing risk of food supply chain instability), cause light and noise pollution ( causing harm to local wildlife and fundamentally destroying a rural environment). It would also adversely impact on unique sites such as the possible Bronze Age round barrow adjacent to Bearley as well as ancient ridge and furrow remnants.

Yes

Representation ID: 90555

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Gavin Simpson

Its our moral duty to protect the wild life that has no say in what heppens to its environment. We MUST leave the wildlife for future generations to obsevre and enjoy.

Yes

Representation ID: 90574

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent:

The SMJ Nature Reserve At LittleHaven, Cranhill
B50 4LP

No

Representation ID: 90601

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Pack

No. The policy does not provide enough detail on how important environmental assets will be protected and enhanced, especially when a large number of the allocations are next to and even covering important designated Local Wildlife Sites.

Yes

Representation ID: 90683

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Martin Littlewood

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 90744

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Tim Goodwin

We must also protect established wildlife corridors connected to Nature Reserves and vital wildlife sites. Consideration should be given to 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. Particular consideration should be given to greenbelt sites adjacent to existing wildlife corridors and habitats such as the Clopton Corner part of SQ18 adjacent to the Welcome Hills.

Yes

Representation ID: 90814

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Maria Sacristan

Should protect established wild life corridors connected to nature reserves

Yes

Representation ID: 90882

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr James Morris

It is crucial to safeguard existing wildlife corridors linked to Nature Reserves and essential wildlife sites. The impact of noise and light pollution on these sensitive areas must be evaluated, along with the potential destruction of ecosystems and habitats due to poorly chosen development locations. Protecting these corridors ensures that wildlife can move freely between habitats, maintaining biodiversity and ecological balance. Inappropriate development can disrupt these natural pathways, leading to isolation and endangerment of species. Therefore, careful planning and consideration of environmental factors are necessary to preserve these vital connections and support the health of wildlife populations.

Yes

Representation ID: 90901

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Emma Barber

It’s crucial to protect existing wildlife corridors that connect Nature Reserves and essential wildlife sites. We must evaluate the impact of noise and light pollution on these sensitive areas, as well as the potential destruction of ecosystems and habitats caused by poorly chosen development locations. By safeguarding these corridors, we ensure that wildlife can move freely between habitats, maintaining biodiversity and ecological balance. However, inappropriate development can disrupt these natural pathways, leading to isolation and endangering species. Therefore, careful planning and consideration of environmental factors are essential to preserve these vital connections and support the health of wildlife populations.

Yes

Representation ID: 90932

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Jason Lupton

This should go further and protect established wildlife corridors, using resources such as B-Lines to retain the connections.
https://www.buglife.org.uk/our-work/b-lines/
Connecting nature reserves and wildlife sites is an environmental priority, developments can cause destruction to ecosystems with noise and light pollution.
Habitats should be protected and if destroyed cannot be easily replaced.

Yes

Representation ID: 90936

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Malcolm Fisk

We should absolutely protect our existing and established nature reserves and wildlife sites, together with the corridors that connect them. We should also consider the impact of development alongside these areas with a view to not only preventing any negative impact to them, but also how any development could enhance them and encourage positive integration.

I also feel we should consider the active creation of new areas for wildlife within any new development sites

No

Representation ID: 90963

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Matthew Schofield

Protection of existing sites whilst welcome doesn't address the need to improve degraded areas of nature. South Warwickshire has very little in the way of well-preserved natural areas and building on green belt is going in the opposite direction.

Yes

Representation ID: 91207

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Radford Semele Parish Council

Radford Semele Parish Council supports the suggestions.

No

Representation ID: 91387

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Norman Thomas

The policy does not provide enough detail on how important environmental assets will be protected and enhanced, especially when a large number of the allocations are next to and even covering important designated Local Wildlife Sites.

No

Representation ID: 91394

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Lucia Restall Orr

No. The policy does not provide enough detail on how important environmental assets will be protected and enhanced, especially when a large number of the allocations are next to and even covering important designated Local Wildlife Sites.

Additionally dropping the Wildbelt system against prior feedback is unacceptable, given that the LNRS is a principle rather an a tangible strategy and designation. LNRS, without a definitive action plan associated, is not a valid replacement.