Yes

Representation ID: 95248

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Kineton Parish Council

no further comment

No

Representation ID: 95312

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Alamo

Agent: Harris Lamb

Draft policy Direction 40 has the potential to add additional development costs that must be factored into a Viability Assessment produced with the pre-submission draft SWLP. In order for this policy to be included in the Plan, the Council must have an understanding of the impact of this.

Other

Representation ID: 95351

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Lee Tallen

Recent large scale development that we have recently seen in Stratford shows that developers ride roughshod over such requirements and preserving/protecting, let alone enhancing, the environmental landscape is not adhered too (and has seemingly not been enforced). Feels a little like lip service/box ticking but won't happen in reality, from recent developments we have seen.

Yes

Representation ID: 95568

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Allan Stewart

Important.

No

Representation ID: 95712

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: David Wilson Homes

Agent: Harris Lamb

No. Draft Policy Direction 40 has the potential to add additional development costs that must be factored into a viability assessment produced with the Pre-Submission SWLP. In order for this Policy to be included in the SWLP the Councils must have an understanding of the impact of this Policy on scheme density, the net to gross development ratio of schemes, and the overall scheme costs.

Yes

Representation ID: 95787

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Amanda Dyhouse

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 95832

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Shelagh Marshall

Provided the policy Direction is adhered to.

Yes

Representation ID: 95888

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Carter

There could be more specific mention of the value of protecting and enhancing the setting/amenity of any watercourses or water features within or adjacent to development site

Yes

Representation ID: 95967

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Tesh

Yes

Yes

Representation ID: 96363

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Southam Town Council

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

Yes

Representation ID: 96541

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Shipston Town Council

yes

Yes

Representation ID: 96632

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Nixon

The council should use a wide evidence base to ensure good results.

Other

Representation ID: 96683

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Janet Gee

Why not demand that all new developments prohibit the use of plastic grass, as this is misleading to wildlife at best and has no benefit to nature, or biodiversity, or carbon capture.
Ditto slabbing over front gardens to create parking spaces.

Other

Representation ID: 96873

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Jeffery

Site BW is entirely on agricultural land within the Green Belt and planting a few trees on the site would in no way act as a substitute for mature broad leaf trees and hedges. Other sites which are not completely within the Green Belt would be far more appropriate eg E1, F1, F2, F3 and G1

Yes

Representation ID: 97078

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Alcester Town Council

This approach is agreed by 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’).

Yes

Representation ID: 97107

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: John Dinnie

In addition to following this policy for new developments, this should also apply where housing development has already taken place and GBI could be enhanced to re-balance the community with green space, habitats, parks or gardens. This could form part of a neighbourhood plan.

Yes

Representation ID: 97215

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Tysoe Parish Council

Yes

No

Representation ID: 97482

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes

Agent: Harris Lamb

Draft Policy Direction 40 has the potential to add additional development costs that must be factored into a viability assessment produced with the Pre-Submission SWLP. In order for this Policy to be included in the Plan the Councils must have an understanding of the impact of this Policy on scheme density, the net to gross development ratio of schemes, and the overall scheme costs.

Yes

Representation ID: 97713

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr HUGH KEEP

I thoroughly support the Greening Factor approach.

Other

Representation ID: 97774

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Jeffery

If a large settlement is developed entirely on productive agricultural land containing hedges and trees and is entirely in the Green Belt, putting a few trees within the development cannot be considered in any way compensation or improvement of GBI. Proposed site BW is an excellent example of this and within the parameters of this Policy, cannot be considered suitable. Other proposed sites such as E1, F1, F2, F3, G1 would be far more appropriate.

Other

Representation ID: 97894

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Stafford-scott

Supporting the existing biodiversity, safeguarding and supporting areas of
higher biodiversity already in existence is crucial. Research shows that developers aren’t implementing the ecological and biodiversity
enhancements they originally claim to.

Yes

Representation ID: 98364

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Catesby Estates

Agent: Mr Will Whitelock

Catesby Estates are supportive of the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 40.

Yes

Representation ID: 98387

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr

The aims of the approach can't be faulted.

Yes

Representation ID: 98500

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Newbould

No mention of gardens as part of greening factor. These are often very small in new developments as there seems to be a preference to the communal green spaces but I think there should be some value in gardens & the extra level of diversity these can achieve.

No

Representation ID: 98648

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Alice Hibbert

Supporting the existing biodiversity, safeguarding and supporting areas of higher biodiversity already in existence is crucial. Research shows that developers aren’t implementing the ecological and biodiversity enhancements they claim to. Article reference: https://wildjustice.org.uk/general/lost-nature-report/

It is unclear how this will deliver wider connecting corridors which are more substantial than the proposed small scale on-site improvements which much of the time aren't delivered by developers. The councils needs to update their Green/Blue Infrastructure evidence base, in line with the NPPF and in time to influence chosen housing sites in the Local Plan.

Yes

Representation ID: 98692

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Catesby Estates

Agent: Mr Will Whitelock

Catesby Estates support the approach in Draft Policy Direction 40. The Vision Document and Concept Masterplan for Land South of Allimore Lane propose to enhance Spittle Brook with a green and blue infrastructure corridor, including large wet grassland areas and wildlife ponds to improve biodiversity. Sustainable drainage systems will also be integral, managing surface water while creating habitats. The proposals will offer landscape benefits like new public open space, play facilities, recreational routes, and a community orchard, demonstrating that green and blue infrastructure can be effectively integrated into development.

Yes

Representation ID: 98982

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Cotswold District Council

Support - the list could include a reference to orchards

Yes

Representation ID: 99134

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr James Kennedy

The challenge here will be to develop a robust method for measuring Green and Blue Infrastructure and avoid duplication with the work done to define the baselines for BNG and ENG.

No

Representation ID: 99328

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land - Wellesbourne

Draft Policy Direction 40 has the potential to add additional development costs that must be factored into a viability assessment produced with the Pre-Submission SWLP. In order for this Policy to be included in the SWLP the Councils must have an understanding of the impact of this Policy on scheme density, the net to gross development ratio of schemes, and the overall scheme costs.

Yes

Representation ID: 99667

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Gillian Padgham

yes