Yes

Representation ID: 98381

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Newbould

Supporter of Warwickshire Wildlife Trust and so hope they would be involved in advising and guiding on maintaining & regenerating the various assets

Other

Representation ID: 98496

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: E Booth

These aims would be violated by the SG06 development as would remove trees, hedges, open space, farmland and damage the local river. This would reduce biodiversity, habitats and encourage climate change.

No

Representation ID: 98622

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Alice Hibbert

The policy does not give detail on how environmental assets will be protected and enhanced, especially when many of the potential sites are next to vital designated Local Wildlife Sites.

No

Representation ID: 98646

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ginny White

How will important environmental assets be protected and enhanced? There doesn't seem to be enough detail, especially given the proximity of important designated Local Wildlife Sites, which are very obviously going to be affected.

No

Representation ID: 98882

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Friends of Radfords Green Environment (FORGE)

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: 98904

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Swifts Local Network: Swifts & Planning Group

In summary, the current references to biodiversity in chapter 11 are very welcome, but please consider building-dependent wildlife such as red-listed bird species which inhabit buildings in South Warwickshire, especially significant here due to the number of unmodernised older buildings which have a greater tendency to host these species.

Therefore, please add: Swift bricks are a universal nest brick for small bird species and should be installed in new developments including extensions, in accordance with best-practice guidance such as BS 42021 or CIEEM. Artificial nest cups for house martins may be proposed instead of swift bricks where recommended by ecologist.

Yes

Representation ID: 98956

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Cotswold District Council

support

No

Representation ID: 99016

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul McCloskey

It not that there is much wrong with what is written, BUT......

All the green space, the sites of special interest, SuDs systems etc need to be integrated into one green whole with green corridors so that wildlife can migrate safely and propagate. As things are we have isolated bits of nature that are not connected. I think this is the main priority. We need to see how 30 by 30 is going to work out before we decide where the houses should go.

Yes

Representation ID: 99115

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr James 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: 99379

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Tania White

Sites like The Little Haven Moth Nature on the old railway line in Bidford which is part of the Warwickshire County Council Local Biodiversity Action Plan (lbap@warwickshire.gov.uk) and Butterfly Conservation. The County Recorder, an inspect expert and lepidopterist regularly visit to monitor moth numbers as there is an extremely favourable tally and is an important nature reserve within the County. This will be impacted by SG20 if development goes ahead. Save our wildlife

No

Representation ID: 99588

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr John Howson

Draft Policy 36 - Re: Long Marston Airfield

We are noticing a reduction in species, particularly since development on Meon Vale and the airfield. Including, fewer Newts in the pond, fewer hedgehogs, bats and deer.
We have deer coming into the garden now having been pushed away from the above developed green spaces, and some are hit on the roads.
Creatures appear frightened and tier corridors are cut-off. How will they survive ?
Insects also reduceds as a knock on effect.

No

Representation ID: 99624

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Afolabi Okeshola

I believe there should be minimum acceptable levels set for the proportion of green land maintained within local areas to avoid overdevelopment.

Yes

Representation ID: 99660

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Gillian Padgham

yes agree

No

Representation ID: 99730

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Stone -Johnston

SG05 - will destroy ancient trees and hedgerows. The impact to this green space will be devastating. Building on green belt land harms both mental health and wildlife. Green spaces provide vital areas for relaxation, reducing stress, promoting overall well-being. Losing these natural environments means fewer opportunities for people to connect with nature, leading to negative effects on mental health.Additionally, green belts are crucial habitats for wildlife, supporting biodiversity and offering refuge for many species. Development disrupts ecosystems, endangering these creatures, reducing the natural balance that benefits both people and wildlife. Protecting green belts is essential for health environmental sustainability.

Yes

Representation ID: 99754

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Waller

Yes i agree with the policy but it would be good to have more info on the species being protected, especially as i am an ecologist

No

Representation ID: 99913

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Steven Simpson

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: 99921

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Steven Coulsting

I agrre with Draft Policy Direction-36 - Protection of Sites, Habitats and Species

Yes

Representation ID: 99939

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford District Council Green Group

It is difficult to see how biodiversity is going to be enhanced and linked up when so many proposed developments are next to these precious sites. I can't see any reference to 30% by 2030, perhaps the parcels that aren't used for development can be used for this.

Yes

Representation ID: 100031

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Welford on Avon Parish Council

agreed .. a good policy

No

Representation ID: 100135

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Mary Addyman

The policy does not provide 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: 100207

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anna Taylor

Protecting sensitive habitats, species, and established wildlife corridors must be a priority in planning decisions. Development near nature reserves and vital wildlife sites threatens biodiversity through habitat destruction, ecosystem fragmentation, and increased noise and light pollution, which disrupt natural behaviours. Clopton Quarter and the Welcombe Hills serve as key ecological areas, supporting diverse flora and fauna. Inappropriate development weakens connectivity between wildlife corridors, reducing species resilience. Planning policies must ensure buffer zones, safeguard green infrastructure, and prioritise biodiversity net gain, preventing irreversible damage to protected landscapes and ensuring long-term ecological sustainability.

Yes

Representation ID: 100392

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Loades

Absolutely agree. The local wildlife, particularly in green areas, should be protected. It is essential for our environment.

Yes

Representation ID: 100414

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Adrian Parsons

I absolutely agree with the approach laid out

Yes

Representation ID: 100464

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

The plan should also protect established wildlife corridors connected to Local Reserves and wildlife sites. The protection of these sites from noise and light pollution as well as destruction of ecosystems and habitats due to inappropriate development locations need to be taken into consideration.

Yes

Representation ID: 100471

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Aimee Carter

Once we lose this valuable resource we cannot regain it within several generations. Must be protected at all costs.

No

Representation ID: 100531

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr peter spreadbury

I say NO because your large settlements housing plans are 180 degrees opposed to this policy. Small developments allow nature highways to survive. Large settlements leave a wasteland for nature and the public who may welcome our natural fauna and flora to flourish within and around our communities.

Yes

Representation ID: 100559

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Vanessa Chivers

Whilst I agree with the SWLP protection of sites, I would like to note the irreplaceable loss of biodiversity if farms on Hareway Lane X1 are replaced with industrial and housing developments. The land supports protected species such as newts, badgers, owls, muntjac and fallow deer, woodpeckers and red kites. Hareway Lane is flanked by hedgerow and wildlife inhabitants wander aimlessly from one side to the other, hence existing residents only drive 30 mph. Replacement of the single track lane and build would destroy this unique environment. Any biodiverse net gain would be impossible, merely wiping out existing wildlife 100%.

Yes

Representation ID: 100620

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Janine McComiskey

Yes!

No

Representation ID: 100752

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Judy Steele

The policy does not provide enough detail on how local nature assets will be protected and enhanced. A large number of the allocations are next to and even covering important designated Local Wildlife Sites.

No

Representation ID: 100874

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Dave Steele

the plan needs a tree canopy target, as other Councils have done, to be more ambitious at a wider scale.