Yes

Representation ID: 91480

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Michelle Mendoza

n/a

No

Representation ID: 91513

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mary Adams

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: 91549

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sidney Syson

This is vitally important

Yes

Representation ID: 91710

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Norman

Sensible

Yes

Representation ID: 91786

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Taylor

N/A

No

Representation ID: 91817

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Tim Burridge

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: 91860

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Hanno Kirner

Need to protect exiting green belt and nature reserves

Yes

Representation ID: 91906

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Donna Goodwin

Established wildlife corridors connected to Nature Reserves and vital wildlife sites must be protected. 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.

Other

Representation ID: 92034

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Valerie Whittaker

I cannot see how building on Green Belt and needed farm land complies with protection of the area and habitats.

Yes

Representation ID: 92062

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Oliver Grice

All agreed.

No

Representation ID: 92108

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Dee McGowan

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.

Other

Representation ID: 92154

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Patricia Scott

Both Stratford and Warwick Council planning departments have proven themselves incapable of delivering on the protection of species and habitats

No

Representation ID: 92284

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Spelman

The NPPF published December 2024 states the importance of Local Nature recovery strategies and requires the local authorities to connect them to features of nature conservation and buffer them from development. The proposal to build thousands of houses on the county boundary with Solihull does not meet this requirement . Species and habitats do not respect administrative boundaries and therefore S Warks should take more account of the impact of its housing plans on Solihull’s nature conservation strategy. The lowland heath of Hockley Heath supports protected species and its green infrastructure helps mitigate the effects of climate change especially flooding.

Yes

Representation ID: 92285

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr G Wyatt

The more protection and anhancement given to sites, the better. My concern is that many connectivity corridors for wildlife between sites will be destroyed by the encroaching new developments. In spite of having limited development near my home, for example, the species count for birds, insects etc has decreased massively over the last few years, so reducing the foraging opportunities for animals has already had a devastating effect on the directly observable numbers and range of organisms. Of course, many factors are at work, but the loss of the natural environment must play a huge role.

Yes

Representation ID: 92360

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr James Wilkinson

This policy is essential to protect what little we have left of our countryside.
It should be strictly enforced.

Yes

Representation ID: 92428

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Christine Slaughter

Protect established wildlife habitats, ecosystems, corridors and Nature Reserves. We need to reduce noise and light pollution near these sites.

No

Representation ID: 92439

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Ted and Zbigniew Jasinski

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: 92497

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Julian Brown

Agree

Yes

Representation ID: 92641

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Yates

Any sssi sites can be moved without damage/harm to the specific interest as biologists have stated when building HS2. ISSI sites should not stop Infrastructure/residential or commercial developments when these can be successfully moved.

Yes

Representation ID: 92682

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Phillip Johnson

I agree.

Yes

Representation ID: 92696

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Nigel Briggs

I agree with the approach, but much more is needed. The catastrophic decline in insects, birds and wild mammals populations in the last few decades will not be reversed without substantial environmental improvement being incorporated in all new developments, of whatever type.
Every field and hedge should be designated to protect and support wildlife, including appropriate land management, particularly in the area designated as 'Forest of Arden', in which further development must be minimised.

Yes

Representation ID: 92699

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Heidi Ambrose-Brown

Yes - but only if it means that green belt is protected and not used for large housing developments - for example the proposed site at Hatton or employment site at Wedgnock Farm, Warwick.

No

Representation ID: 92720

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Luke Kempton

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: 92770

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Craig Fellowes

Simply whilst this states that the environment should be considered it is not in relation to B1. There are protected species on this site and full ecological survey by an independent person should be carried out. The council have a legal duty under S40 NERC to protect biodiversity and they are failing again and again. This is a criminal offence.

Yes

Representation ID: 92821

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carolyn Stacey

We should not underestimate the value of our hedgerows in the rural-urban fringe. Too many of these locations have been lost and their ecological value in supporting food chains should not be underestimated.

Yes

Representation ID: 92996

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Dominic Momcilovic

Stratford should always protect wildlife corridors & wildlife ecosystems & habitats. Sensitive sites should be protected from housing & inappropriate development.

Yes

Representation ID: 93033

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Alison Blake

I'm a bit sorry this is item 11. seems to me it should be top of the requirements of the plan

Yes

Representation ID: 93196

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Martina Hunt

This policy is imperative for environmental protection of sites, habitats and Species. Clopton Quarter nestles adjacent to the Clopton nature reserve and Welcombe Hills country park with a vast array of wildlife, the habitat of which is already increasingly being diminished, e.g. Roe deer. Corridors help, but a wider protection of this landscape and habitat are essential. If you walk the Monarch way adjacent to SG18, you will see from the hills how such a development will encroach on the visual aesthetics and open landscape. Connecting the river walk with the footpaths of the Welcombe Hills could be advantageous environmentally.

No

Representation ID: 93223

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Kim Salmon

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: 93323

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr geoff marston

I am concerned as the policy provides limited detail on how important environmental assets will be protected and enhanced. This particularly as large number of the allocations are next to and even covering important designated Local Wildlife Sites.