Yes

Representation ID: 91598

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sidney Syson

How will this be monitored and enforced?

Yes

Representation ID: 91726

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Norman

Sensible

No

Representation ID: 91799

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Taylor

"We will explore the possibility of requiring long-term management and maintenance (minimum of five years) of new landscape proposals to ensure their establishment. " - should this not be for the lifetime of the development?

Other

Representation ID: 91829

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Tim Burridge

Development should not be allowed in the area, and the caveats should be removed (such as that ‘unless there would be an over-riding benefit, for instance to meet an evidenced local housing need’). The Local Plan should be allocating suitable land for housing need.

Yes

Representation ID: 91867

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Hanno Kirner

Where existing special landscapes are negatively affected we should not be developing

Yes

Representation ID: 91929

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Donna Goodwin

Areas where you can’t mitigate the effect of development on the landscape should be protected from development.

Yes

Representation ID: 92271

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Isobel McLauchlin

Where it is impossible to mitigate the effects of building and development on the landscape - this landscape should then be protected from development.

Yes

Representation ID: 92356

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Daphne Tilley

The Ancient Arden landscape must be preserved. Part of it is included in site B1. Therefore this proposed site should not be considered.

Yes

Representation ID: 92444

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Christine Slaughter

Where you can't mitigate the effects of development of the landscape, it should be protected.

Yes

Representation ID: 92522

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Julian Brown

Agree

Yes

Representation ID: 92659

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Bex Thomson

No comment

Other

Representation ID: 92733

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Luke Kempton

Development should not be allowed in the area, and the caveats should be removed (such as that ‘unless there would be an over-riding benefit, for instance to meet an evidenced local housing need’). The Local Plan should be allocating suitable land for housing need.

Yes

Representation ID: 93027

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Dominic Momcilovic

Areas where you can't mitigate the effects of development on the landscape should be protected from development.

Yes

Representation ID: 93049

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Alison Blake

Who is the judge of this? A lot of new housing looks very out of keeping

Yes

Representation ID: 93218

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Martina Hunt

Areas where you cannot mitigate the effect of development on the landscape should be protected from development.

No

Representation ID: 93232

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Kim Salmon

Development should not be allowed in the area, and the caveats should be removed (such as that ‘unless there would be an over-riding benefit, for instance to meet an evidenced local housing need’). The Local Plan should be allocating suitable land for housing need.

Other

Representation ID: 93356

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr geoff marston

Caveats such as that ‘unless there would be an over-riding benefit, for instance to meet an evidenced local housing need’ should be removed . The Local Plan should be allocating suitable land for housing need and so development should not be allowed in the area.

Yes

Representation ID: 93409

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Haggarty

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 93564

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Wellesbourne and Walton Parish Council

It is a great pity that this document does not follow the policy above. the potential developments of SG15, Sg16, X1 and SG09 would destroy the landscape and character of the Parish of Wellesbourne and Walton. They would create a vast urban sprawl at odds with the village nature we currently have, surrounded by open countryside. The proposed sites for development are all about the rapacious nature of developers and nothing about the character and landscape of our settlement.

Yes

Representation ID: 93626

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr JAMES STEWART

I agree with this policy because areas where development would cause irreversible harm to the landscape should be protected. Some landscapes are too valuable to be altered, and their natural beauty, biodiversity, and ecological functions cannot be effectively mitigated. Protecting these areas ensures they remain intact for future generations, preserving their environmental and cultural significance. Sustainable development should prioritize locations where impacts can be managed, rather than damaging landscapes that cannot be restored.

Yes

Representation ID: 93691

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Claire STEWART

I support this policy because areas where development would cause irreversible harm to the landscape must be safeguarded. Some landscapes are too valuable to be altered, with their natural beauty, biodiversity, and ecological importance impossible to fully mitigate. Protecting these spaces ensures they remain intact for future generations, preserving both their environmental and cultural significance. Sustainable development should focus on locations where impacts can be effectively managed, rather than compromising landscapes that cannot be restored.

Yes

Representation ID: 93783

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr George Power

Areas that cannot have the damaging effects of development alleviated must be protected from development.

Yes

Representation ID: 93821

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr William Campbell

Strongly agree

Yes

Representation ID: 93987

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sue Scurrah

-

Yes

Representation ID: 94139

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Kelly

Areas where you can’t mitigate the effect of development on the
landscape should be protected from development.

Other

Representation ID: 94169

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Samantha Stafford Scott

Development should not be permitted at all if mitigation of damage to the environment cannot be guaranteed.

Yes

Representation ID: 94172

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Holly Whittaker

Areas where you cannot mitigate the effect of development on the landscape should be protected from development.

Yes

Representation ID: 94371

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Alan Blandamer

Areas where you can't mitigate the effect of development on the landscape should be protected from development.

Yes

Representation ID: 94967

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Ainsworth

Yes - areas where you cant mitigate the affect of devlopment on the landscpae should be proteced.

Yes

Representation ID: 95099

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Tracey Grimes

If we can't offset all the issues and environmental concerns that comes with a development then that development must be rejected.