Yes

Representation ID: 103998

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Amarjit Gill

Open spaces should be protected

Yes

Representation ID: 104123

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Margaret Halligan

Agree

Other

Representation ID: 104332

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Norrie

I'm not sure if this would prejudice the ability to achieve densification of housing or not. Perhaps that should be addressed?

Yes

Representation ID: 104376

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Rachel Pope

SG06 is a huge open space with over 2 miles of well-used rural footpaths. Published comments from those using the footpaths during lockdown show how vital they are for physical and mental wellbeing. They are a really important open space and there are no significant public benefits which would outweigh their loss. The counterbalancing 'public benefit' is sufficient, well-designed and affordable housing and this can be provided in non-green belt locations (as shown in the SWLP Sustainability Appraisal).

Yes

Representation ID: 104534

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Doug Wallace

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 104713

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Neal Appleton

_

Yes

Representation ID: 105023

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Susan Ingleby

Yes

Yes

Representation ID: 106516

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Wychbury Developments

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

We support the provisions of Policy Direction 43c, specifically in relation to the need for new development
to deliver new open spaces. However, the guidance for new open spaces should be provided now, to
enable GI strategies to be applied to Design Codes and a broader site by site assessment as to
infrastructure delivery, site yield and overall site viability and thus deliverability.
We support a broad range approach to open space typologies, including in relation to food production via
community orchards and allotments.

No

Representation ID: 106671

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Warwickshire Property and Development Group

Agent: Framptons

We recognise that new development should ensure adequate provision of open space to meet the needs of future residents and that this should be provided on site in the first instance and then off-site, when it can be adequately demonstrated that on-site provision is not feasible. However, the requirement for an off-site contribution to enhance or provide new open space, within 400m of the development should be removed from the policy as there may be cases where there is simply no existing open space within distance threshold or it would not be practical to deliver new open space within the same area. For these reasons such a policy requirement would not be found “sound” at Examination.

No

Representation ID: 106985

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bellway Strategic Land-Land off Mallory Road, Bishop's Tachbrook

Agent: Savills

We object to the proposed requirement for developments that result in the loss of open space to only be permitted where they provide significant public benefits. This does not align with national policy (NPPF paragraph 104) and should be properly justified.
Where off-site open space provision is required, the policy seeks to ensure this is delivered within 400m. The policy will need to state that this is required ‘where possible and practicable’. Enhancements within 400m of the site may not always be achievable and should be determined on a site by site basis.

Yes

Representation ID: 107186

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

The issues covered in DPD 43 are welcomed and supported.

Yes

Representation ID: 107221

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Catesby Estates

Agent: Mr Will Whitelock

It is, of course, recognised that new development should ensure adequate provision of open spaces – which need to be provided on site in the first instance and then off-site, when it can be adequately demonstrated that on-site provision is not feasible. However, the requirement to provide an off-site contribution to enhance or provide new open space within 400 metres of the development is impractical and unreasonable. It is reasonable to request that the off-site open space is provided in an area that is well served by the residents of the site and any surrounding dwellings or neighbourhoods.

Yes

Representation ID: 107281

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Cotswolds National Landscape Board

Yes, the Cotswolds National Landscape (CNL) Board agrees with the approach outlined in Draft Policy Direction 43c.

Other

Representation ID: 107343

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford-on-Avon District Social Inclusion Partnership

Accessible green spaces are well understood to have therapeutic capacity in health and wellbeing terms and we believe that these should be protected and accessible. Access to healthy and nutritious food is not always available to all residents so every opportunity should be taken to develop community orchards and allotments and the management and distribution networks supporting these initiatives which also assist in supporting good health and wellbeing and develop relationships and community. We agree with Draft Policy Direction 43a, 43b, 43c, 43d & 43e.

In respect of parks with equipment, these should in our opinion be sited on all-weather surfaces, so they remain accessible and safe places for children to access year round. Unfortunately, where surfaces become boggy or inaccessible during the winter, this can lead to the loss of a useful bumping space for months on end, during which communities lose access to import opportunities to enable outdoor play for children and places for parents to meet and build community.

Yes

Representation ID: 107523

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Davidsons Homes

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

We support the provisions of Policy Direction 43c, specifically in relation to the need for new development to deliver new open spaces. However, the guidance for new open spaces should be provided now, to enable GI strategies to be applied to Design Codes and a broader site by site assessment as to infrastructure delivery, site yield and overall site viability and thus deliverability.
We support a broad range approach to open space typologies, including in relation to food production via community orchards and allotments and access to existing footpath links to wider existing open space such as the Welcombe Hills.

No

Representation ID: 107762

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bellway Strategic Land-Land to the west of Southam Road, Long Itchington

Agent: Savills

We object to the proposed requirement for developments that result in the loss of open space to only be permitted where they provide significant public benefits. This does not align with national policy (NPPF paragraph 104) and should be properly justified.
Where off-site open space provision is required, the policy seeks to ensure this is delivered within 400m. The policy will need to state that this is required ‘where possible and practicable’. Enhancements within 400m of the site may not always be achievable and should be determined on a site by site basis.

Yes

Representation ID: 108178

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Bellway Homes (West Midlands)

Agent: Cerda Planning

We support the provisions of Policy Direction 43c, specifically in relation to the need for new development to deliver new open spaces. However, the guidance for new open spaces should be provided now, to enable GI strategies to be applied to Design Codes and a broader site by site assessment as to infrastructure delivery, site yield and overall site viability and thus deliverability.
We support a broad range approach to open space typologies, including in relation to food production via community orchards and allotments.

Yes

Representation ID: 108289

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Spitfire Homes

Agent: Harris Lamb

We support recognition that in the first instance area of public open space should be provided on site. However, the suggestion that that when this is not possible contributions will be required to enhance or provide new open spaces within 400m of development, is inappropriate.
There will be numerous apartment schemes and brownfield regeneration opportunities where public open space cannot be provided on site and there may be no areas of public open space with 400m that can be upgraded. The 400m distance threshold should be removed from the policy as there may be cases where this not practical. Where there is a need for open space to be provided off-site, the nature of that provision should be determined on the basis of the location of that site.

Other

Representation ID: 108412

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: The Kler Group

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

We support the provisions of Policy Direction 43c, specifically in relation to the need for new development to deliver new open spaces. However, the guidance for new open spaces should be provided now, to enable GI strategies to be applied to Design Codes and a broader site by site assessment as to infrastructure delivery, site yield and overall site viability and thus deliverability.

We support a broad range approach to open space typologies, including in relation to food production via community orchards and allotments.

Other

Representation ID: 108443

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr R Wilding

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

We support the provisions of Policy Direction 43c, specifically in relation to the need for new development to deliver new open spaces. However, the guidance for new open spaces should be provided now, to enable GI strategies to be applied to Design Codes and a broader site by site assessment as to infrastructure delivery, site yield and overall site viability and thus deliverability.

We support a broad range approach to open space typologies, including in relation to food production via community orchards and allotments.

No

Representation ID: 108479

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: The Bird Group

Agent: Framptons

It is, of course, recognised that new development should ensure adequate provision of open spaces – which need to be provided on site in the first instance and then off-site, when it can be adequately demonstrated that on-site provision is not feasible. However, the requirement to provide an off-site contribution to enhance or provide new open space within 400 metres of the development is impractical and unreasonable. It is reasonable to request that the off-site open space is provided in an area that is well served by the residents of the site and any surrounding dwellings or neighbourhoods.

No

Representation ID: 108533

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Catesby Estates

Agent: Mr Will Whitelock

We recognise that new development should provide adequate open space - on site in the first instance and off-site where on-site provision is not feasible. However, requiring off-site contributions to enhance or provide new open space within 400m of the development is impractical and unreasonable. The wording should be that off-site open space will be provided in an area well served by the residents of the site and any surrounding dwellings and neighbourhoods.

No

Representation ID: 108599

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Corbally Group (Harbury) Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Broad support is provided in principle for the protection and provision of different typologies of open space, with support for this found within the NPPF. However, Paragraph 103 stipulates that planning policies relating to open space must be underpinned by robust and up-to-date assessments of need, and such assessments have not been undertaken to date. This is acknowledged to an extent by the Councils, in stating that technical evidence is lacking to determine thresholds for open space provision. There is still a considerable amount of work required to ensure that the evidence exists to formulate a fully justified and sound policy.

Where open space cannot be provided on-site, the Councils propose that a contribution will be requested to enhance or provide open space within 400 metres of the development. There may not always be scope for this, and thus this figure should only serve as guidance; the policy should read “within 400 metres of the development where possible”.

No

Representation ID: 108843

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bellway Strategic Land-Land east of Stratford-on-Avon

Agent: Savills

We object to the proposed requirement for developments that result in the loss of open space to only be permitted where they provide significant public benefits. This does not align with national policy (NPPF paragraph 104) and should be properly justified.
Where off-site open space provision is required, the policy seeks to ensure this is delivered within 400m. The policy will need to state that this is required ‘where possible and practicable’. Enhancements within 400m of the site may not always be achievable and should be determined on a site by site basis.

Yes

Representation ID: 108956

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council

WCC is supportive of this policy.