Yes

Representation ID: 95310

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Kineton Parish Council

no further comment

No

Representation ID: 95316

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Alamo

Agent: Harris Lamb

Whether an LVIA is needed should be determined on a case by case basis and not just all major developments be required to submit one.

Yes

Representation ID: 95389

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Lee Tallen

Areas of special character should not be touched - i cannot see how such areas could be 'enhanced' by development

No

Representation ID: 95482

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Sue Cuff

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.

No

Representation ID: 95541

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Martin Freeman

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

Other

Representation ID: 95980

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Tesh

Definition is required of what constitutes ‘major’ development as it should be proportional to the size of the settlement where the development is proposed (eg a 100 dwelling development on the edge of say Stratford-upon-Avon won’t have as large a visual impact as say a 20 dwelling development on the edge of a small village). Furthermore, the visual assessment needs to take into account the wider visual context of where the existing settlement is (eg is it in a bowl) and the impact that the proposed development will have on the wider area (ie will it encroach on the skyline).

No

Representation ID: 96092

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Tamsin Kashap

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.

No

Representation ID: 96151

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rosemary Collier

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: 96375

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Southam Town Council

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

Other

Representation ID: 96500

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Shipston Town Council

Definition is required of what constitutes a ‘major’ development it should be proportional to the size of the settlement where the development is proposed (for example a 100 dwelling development on the edge of Stratford-upon-Avon won’t have as large a visual impact as a 20 dwelling development on the edge of a small village). Furthermore, the visual assessment needs to take into account the wider visual context of where the existing settlement is (for example is it in a bowl) and the impact that the proposed development will have on the wider area (ie will it encroach on the skyline).

Yes

Representation ID: 96701

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Janet Gee

no further comment

No

Representation ID: 96859

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Jeffery

In proposed site BW 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: 97118

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’) but further detail is required.

Yes

Representation ID: 97180

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: John Dinnie

This should take account of the landscape harm already inflicted by previous development. Improvements and enhancements to landscape should be encouraged and enabled to rebalance the the effects of existing housing development.

Yes

Representation ID: 97199

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Emily Morris

Areas where you can mitigate the effect of development on the landscape should be protected from all future development

Yes

Representation ID: 97239

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Tysoe Parish Council

Yes

Other

Representation ID: 97413

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Godwin Developments

We acknowledge the policy direction in Policy 48, aiming to protect landscape settings and significant features. Our land interests at Aylesbury Road lie within the Warwickshire Green Belt and are not subject to other landscape designations, but a Public Right of Way crosses the site. The area is characterised by small fields and mature hedgerow trees. Established tree belts provide screening, and the site is relatively level and enclosed. A commissioned Grey Belt Assessment suggests that the proposed development would be sympathetic to the local character and limit visible impacts, except for views from a specific Public Right of Way.

No

Representation ID: 97487

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Spitfire Bespoke Homes

Agent: Harris Lamb

Landscape impact is just one of many matters that needs to be considered as part of the determination process. The draft wording of the policy Direction 48 would appear to elevate the importance of landscape harm beyond other considerations.

Yes

Representation ID: 97641

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Martin Winter

N/A

No

Representation ID: 97769

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Jeffery

Land between Bearley and Wilmcote (BW) will bw impacted by the proposed settlement in terms of vista and tranquility.

Yes

Representation ID: 97908

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Stafford-scott

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

Yes

Representation ID: 97972

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Brenda Stewart

I agree

Yes

Representation ID: 98023

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Helen Little

Y

No

Representation ID: 98033

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Barnabas Harrison

This Policy Direction is not sufficiently stringent, as SG24 appears to propose to construct infrastructure over an area of landscape which would be fundamentally harmed by such construction. This is particularly applicable in the SG24 area between Stratford Road, Aylesbury Road, Box Trees Road, and Grange Road, where the proposed development site would result in coalesence between Hockley Heath and Dorridge, via the sites proposed in the Solihull local plan which are immediately adjacent. Additionally, the Solihull Plan is very clear that Hockley Heath is only suitable for small scale development, which SG24 is not.

Yes

Representation ID: 98479

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Kim James

Salford Priors as a rural parish prioritizes protecting the landscape by ensuring development respects local character, heritage, and tranquillity. Proposals must avoid landscape harm, with refusal being the default unless an evidenced local housing need justifies it. High-quality landscaping is required to mitigate impacts, prevent coalescence, and enhance amenity. Major developments may require Landscape Visual Impact Assessments, and a minimum five-year maintenance plan should be explored. The NPPF (paras. 135 & 187) supports visually attractive, well-integrated designs that protect valued landscapes and biodiversity. Evidence should be gathered to ensure future development remains appropriate, sensitive, and sustainable.

Yes

Representation ID: 98589

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Salford Priors Parish Council

Salford Priors as a rural parish prioritises protecting the landscape by ensuring development respects local character, heritage, and tranquillity. Proposals must avoid landscape harm, with refusal being the default unless an evidenced local housing need justifies it. High-quality landscaping is required to mitigate impacts, prevent coalescence, and enhance amenity. Major developments may require Landscape Visual Impact Assessments, and a minimum five-year maintenance plan should be explored. The NPPF (paras. 135 & 187) supports visually attractive, well-integrated designs that protect valued landscapes and biodiversity. Evidence should be gathered to ensure future development remains appropriate, sensitive, and sustainable.

Other

Representation ID: 98700

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Alice Hibbert

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

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 that doesn't have a detrimental affect on the landscape character.

Other

Representation ID: 98743

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ginny White

The caveat "unless there would be an over-riding benefit, for instance to meet an evidenced local housing need" renders the policy meaningless. It is likely that local housing need can always be evidenced, so a meaningful Local Plan should always protect landscape character and allocate suitable land for housing need. You have to call a halt somewhere.

Other

Representation ID: 98870

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Philip Sykes

Dunsmore & Feldon Area 96) was completely omitted from material prepared by external consultants on behalf of SWLP to be used as evidence in the development of the SWLP. This compromises the evidence and the subsequent statements made in the HELLA, for example. Considering that such consultancy is funded by public monies, then serious questions need to be asked and conclusions re-evaluated.

Other

Representation ID: 98899

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Friends of Radfords Green Environment (FORGE)

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.