Other

Representation ID: 95388

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Lee Tallen

Special landscape areas should not be touched - the policy suggests they are still 'up for grabs'. Past behaviour of developers means ' does not have a harmful impact' will likely not hold true in reality

Yes

Representation ID: 95480

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Sue Cuff

This policy needs stronger wording as it currently states that the SLA designation will not restrict development. In these areas, which are valuable for wildlife, development must be restricted and directed towards lower value areas where the impact on nature will not be so significant.

Other

Representation ID: 95979

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Tesh

Yes. There is no mention of the Special Landscape Area 97 "Dunsmore and Feldon" which needs to be included. What is the timescale for the SLA designation and will there be a public consultation for it?

Other

Representation ID: 96138

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rosemary Collier

This policy needs stronger wording as it currently states that the SLA designation will not restrict development. In these areas, which are valuable for wildlife, development must be restricted and directed towards lower value areas where the impact on nature will not be so significant.

Yes

Representation ID: 96374

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Southam Town Council

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

Yes

Representation ID: 96501

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Shipston Town Council

No insight is provided for a timescale for the SLA designation and the level of public consultation not indicated.
There must be a linkage between Special Landscape Areas and Nation Character Areas.

It should be noted that the National Character Area 96 Dunsmore and Feldon was completely omitted in the appropriate section of supportive evidence in the Sustainability Study (by Lepus Consulting). This calls into question the validity of parts of the HELLA B report.

see B.5.4.1

Yes

Representation ID: 96679

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Janet Gee

a more proactive approach is required to replace lost areas of the Warwickshire Arden landscape

No

Representation ID: 96702

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Nixon

Needs to be stronger. Should restrict development at least use lesser landscape value areas.

Other

Representation ID: 96860

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Jeffery

The character of the landscape of proposed site BW would be changed for ever which would not be an improvement. Building 6700 houses on open fields in an area of scenic beauty will obviously have a harmful impact on the areas distinctive character and appearance

Yes

Representation ID: 97112

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: 97174

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: John Dinnie

The SLA's like Feldon should be used to reinforce the protection provided by the AONB Buffer Zone and Areas of Restraint. This can be further enhanced under policy direction 48.

Other

Representation ID: 97194

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Sir Thomas White’s Charity and The King Henry VIII Endowed Trust, Warwick

Agent: Stansgate Planning

Additional Special Landscape Areas should only be designated, and existing SLAs retained, if there is sufficient evidence to justify why normal landscape policies are inadequate.

Yes

Representation ID: 97237

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Tysoe Parish Council

Yes

Other

Representation ID: 97770

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Jeffery

Land between Bearley and Wilmcote (BW) contributes to a landscape of scenic beauty which will be severly impacted by the proposed development

Other

Representation ID: 97906

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Stafford-scott

Areas where SLA will be detrimentally affected by urbanisation should be protected.

Yes

Representation ID: 97970

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Brenda Stewart

I hope that the riverside round Stratford and the are around the Welcombe Hills, which provide spectacular all-round views will be given this status

Yes

Representation ID: 98320

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Barry Elkington

The designation of the “Arden Special Landscape Area” was removed in the 2006 Warwick District Local Plan as the Council decided to delete the SLA policy. The reasons for this were set out in detail in Core Topic Paper 10 Rural Areas (CD/24) as the Council considered that the Revised Local Plan would provide the necessary protection previously provided by the former SLA policy. These areas in the WDC area, such as SG04, should have their SLA designation restored and this should be recognised in the Landscape Assessment section of the plan.

Other

Representation ID: 98532

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lucy Flynn

Agent: Stansgate Planning

Additional Special Landscape Areas should only be designated, and existing SLAs retained, if there is sufficient evidence to justify why normal landscape policies are inadequate.

Yes

Representation ID: 98697

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Alice Hibbert

Areas where SLA will be detrimentally affected by urbanisation should be protected.

No

Representation ID: 98726

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ginny White

The SLA designation should restrict development in these areas which are valuable for wildlife.

Other

Representation ID: 98898

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Friends of Radfords Green Environment (FORGE)

This policy needs stronger wording as it currently states that the SLA designation will not restrict development. In these areas, which are valuable for wildlife, development must be restricted and directed towards lower value areas where the impact on nature will not be so significant.

Yes

Representation ID: 99078

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Cotswold District Council

Support

Yes

Representation ID: 99693

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Gillian Padgham

agree

Yes

Representation ID: 100081

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Steven Coulsting

Special Landscape Areas are a postive policy

Other

Representation ID: 100151

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Mary Addyman

This policy needs stronger wording as it currently states that the SLA designation will not restrict development. In these areas, which are valuable for wildlife, development must be restricted and directed towards lower value areas where the impact on nature will not be so significant.

No

Representation ID: 100461

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Loades

I disagree that development is not restricted for special landscape areas. It absolutely should be restricted.

Yes

Representation ID: 100500

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

Areas where an SLA is threatened by development should be protected.

Yes

Representation ID: 100866

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Judy Steele

I agree that special landscape areas should cover the whole of the South Warwickshire area

Other

Representation ID: 101341

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ashberry Strategic Land Ltd

Agent: Stansgate Planning

Additional Special Landscape Areas should only be designated, and existing SLAs retained, if there is sufficient evidence to justify why normal landscape policies are inadequate.

Other

Representation ID: 101625

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bellway Homes Ltd

Agent: Stansgate Planning

Additional Special Landscape Areas should only be designated, and existing SLAs retained, if there is sufficient evidence to justify why normal landscape policies are inadequate.