Yes

Representation ID: 98704

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ginny White

I agree as long as this allocation will be used to replace the important Green Belt, green infrastructure corridors and Wildbelt designations which should already be included in the Plan and given substantial weight. Green Belts shouldn't include housing allocations.

Yes

Representation ID: 98821

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Old Milverton and Blackdown Parish Council

Land in between Kenilworth, Coventry and North Leamington would benefit from being designated an Area of Restraint. Developments over the last five years have led to the gap narrowing considerably. Designating it an Area of Restraint would ensure that the open nature is preserved and that the purposes of the green belt here are maintained. It would have an opposite, positive effect to that of possible development in SGs 1-6. SG06 in particular is agricultural land with leisure benefits offered by the rural footpaths. It therefore meets the criteria outlined in the draft policy.

Yes

Representation ID: 98895

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Friends of Radfords Green Environment (FORGE)

It is not clear if this allocation will be used to replace the important Green Belt, green infrastructure corridors and Wildbelt designations which should already be included in the Plan and given substantial weight. Green Belts shouldn’t include housing allocations.

Yes

Representation ID: 99077

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Cotswold District Council

Support

Yes

Representation ID: 99215

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr James Kennedy

11.10, 11.11, 11.12 and 11.13 all refer to designated areas with slightly different objectives and protection regimes. The final policies need to be clear as to the exact definitions in each case and to ensure there are no overlaps and contradictions. Too much complexity will be difficult for developers to address and may make it difficult for planning officers and planning committees to come to reasonable decisions. While there is clearly a need for enhanced protection of certain areas outside those covered in 11.1 it is important to avoid over-engineering the policies.

No

Representation ID: 99337

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land - Wellesbourne

No. The areas of restraint are local landscape designations. There is no provision in the NPPF for the inclusion of local landscape designations in Local Plans. Paragraph 187a of the NPPF requires planning polices to protect and enhance “valued” landscapes only. The guidance in Section 15 of the NPPF is adequate to deal with local landscape matters.

Yes

Representation ID: 99685

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Gillian Padgham

agree

Yes

Representation ID: 99688

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Gillian Padgham

agree

Other

Representation ID: 99996

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Dunster

I agree with the Policy Direction of Areas of Restraint and the extension to Warwick, however I do not see the need to review the existing areas within Stratford, these have been agreed and I see no justification to change them.
I also don't agree with the exemption of "unless the scheme has demonstrable community benefits and contributes significantly the Local Plan's core objectives" this is very vague and could be misused to open up these protected areas.

Yes

Representation ID: 100062

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Steven Coulsting

Areas of Restraint makes sense

No

Representation ID: 100102

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Welford on Avon Parish Council

THis policy is goo but needs to be more specfic and define what an area of restraint is !! ie: conservation areas and village views and vistas etc etc

Yes

Representation ID: 100455

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Adrian Parsons

I absolutely agree with the approach laid out

Yes

Representation ID: 100498

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

The greenbelt area of the Lower Clopton quarter in SG18 should be an identified area of restraint for open landscape, nature conservation and food production.

Yes

Representation ID: 100556

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Newbould

na

No

Representation ID: 100858

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Judy Steele

as suggested by my local environment group: It is not clear if this allocation will be used to replace the important Green Belt, green infrastructure corridors and Wildbelt designations which should already be included in the Plan and given substantial weight. Green Belts shouldn’t include housing allocations.

No

Representation ID: 100930

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land - Wellesbourne

No. The areas of restraint are local landscape designations. There is no provision in the NPPF for the inclusion of local landscape designations in Local Plans. Paragraph 187a of the NPPF requires planning polices to protect and enhance “valued” landscapes only. The guidance in Section 15 of the NPPF is adequate to deal with local landscape matters.

Other

Representation ID: 101292

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr H Farmer

Draft Policy Direction 4's proposal to review Areas of Restraint and allow development for "community benefits" fundamentally undermines their protective purpose. AORs were specifically designated to preserve important open spaces and local character. Experience shows that "review" typically leads to weakening protections, while "community benefits" exceptions create dangerous precedents. Once an AOR's integrity is compromised by development, however small, it becomes increasingly difficult to resist further erosion. The cumulative impact of multiple "community benefit" developments could irreversibly damage these valuable open spaces.

No

Representation ID: 101752

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Vincent Rollason

This development is not good for the area

Other

Representation ID: 101887

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

No opinion at this stage

A study to review and identify Areas of Restraint across South Warwickshire needs to be undertaken to help inform the designations before we can comment on the relevance of this suggestion

Yes

Representation ID: 101968

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs AMANDA VENABLES

Areas of Restraint should be retained to protect important landscapes

Yes

Representation ID: 102045

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Heart of England Forest

Yes, in principle. It is not clear if this allocation will be used to replace the important Green Belt, green infrastructure corridors and Wildbelt designations which should already be included in the Plan and given substantial weight. Green Belts shouldn’t include housing allocations.

Yes

Representation ID: 102054

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Isabel Collins

The greenbelt land of Clopton Quarter in SG18 should be an identified area of restraint for open landscape

Yes

Representation ID: 102061

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Walkden

With regard to Clopton Quarter and the green belt including existing productive farmland, the incumbent wildlife and general landscape, this should be set apart as an area of restraint

Yes

Representation ID: 103618

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jenny Stevens

The greenbelt land bordering the Clopton Quarter identified as an area of restraint -wildlife and nature conservation

Other

Representation ID: 103669

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs S Farmer

Areas of Restraint are a necessary safeguard, as they flag up areas that have already had careful consideration. Of course developers would prefer not to have them as it’s one less thing to challenge.

I do not agree with a review of the Areas of Restraint as I question the motives in my longer reply. Respect previous decisions and put the time into regenerating brownfield areas.

The proposed policy is conveniently vague - it seeks to ensure no harm to identified areas unless there are ‘community benefits’ and it contributes to ‘core objectives’. See longer response.

Yes

Representation ID: 103852

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: H Crook

These areas are very important to protect., and once gone are permanently lost.

These need to include not building or putting any development on flood plains.

This must include caravan sites, static van sites etc

They protect areas that are at high risk from developers.

Yes

Representation ID: 103859

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Elizabeth White

Please consider BIODIVERSITY-RICH HISTORICAL SITE H03 and the wider area Broad Location ‘Whitnash’= rural Radford Semele:

WHITNASH/RADFORD BROOK

BIRDS OF CONSERVATION CONCERN – including RED LIST

GRADE 2 AGRICULTURAL LAND

‘REGIA VIA INTER RADEFORD ET WYTENAS 1285’ = BRIDLEWAY W119 = ‘Greenfield Road’
is at the head of an extensive network of public Bridleways and Footpaths that run down through rural Radford Semele - these ANCIENT PATHS are well-used and much loved

WHITNASH HOLY WELL [MWA7390],

CASTLE HILL FIELD [MWA8287]

RADFORD ROMAN VILLA [MWA1905],

SUGGESTION OF ‘BUILDING A HISTORICAL CENTRE AND MUSEUM CLOSE BY’...

PORTABLE ANTIQUITIES SCHEME FINDS


-OLD MILVERTON

Yes

Representation ID: 104008

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Amarjit Gill

The green belt of the Clopton quarter of SG18 should be preserved for its open landscape, nature conservation and potential for grade 3 land for food production

Yes

Representation ID: 104013

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Camille Newton

In principal this sounds like a good approach to be rolled out across Warwick District as well Stratford District.

Yes

Representation ID: 104139

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Margaret Halligan

Agree