No

Representation ID: 99341

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land - Wellesbourne

It would be entirely disproportionate for a LIVA to be submitted for the majority of schemes of this size.

Yes

Representation ID: 99694

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Gillian Padgham

agree

Yes

Representation ID: 100087

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Steven Coulsting

Protecting and Enhancing Landscape Character is a very positive policy

Yes

Representation ID: 100110

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Welford on Avon Parish Council

This must include the local environments around existing village boundaries. this imposition of large housing developments on the outter edges of villages destroys the views, vistas and landscapes around them.

Yes

Representation ID: 100463

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Loades

Please take particular consideration for shielding solar farms. They are unsightly and should be screened as much as possible.

Yes

Representation ID: 100503

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

Areas where the effect of development cannot be mitigated should be protected.

Yes

Representation ID: 100555

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Newbould

na

Other

Representation ID: 100871

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Judy Steele

I'd rather you implemented rather than explored. Major developments should have full LVA

No

Representation ID: 100935

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land - Wellesbourne

The Policy is disproportionate and unclear. Any development of a greenfield site is likely to have a degree of landscape harm as it will result in any development taking place in an area where there is currently no built development. This does not, however, mean that the starting point for determination of an application is a presumption it should be refused.

Yes

Representation ID: 101156

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Rowington Landowner Consortium

Agent: Knight Frank LLP

The landowner consortium generally supports Draft Policy Direction 49, whereby it is clear that the new settlement C1 has potential to provide a landscape-led approach, preserving natural features, integrating substantial green spaces, and promoting biodiversity.

Yes

Representation ID: 101663

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Zoe Leventhal

Support. This should be done in conjunction with Warwickshire Wildlife Trust and town and parish councils. Careful drafting will need to ensure there is no overlap with other policies and so as to minimise the burden on developers.

No

Representation ID: 101766

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Vincent Rollason

This development is not good for the area

Other

Representation ID: 101881

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Reserve judgement

Unless major developments are required to have a full Landscape Visual Impact Assessment this is surely toothless

Yes

Representation ID: 101895

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs AMANDA VENABLES

Can mechanisms to ensure landscaping is actually carried out be improved?

No

Representation ID: 102051

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Barwood Land

Agent: Savills (UK) Ltd

We recognise and support the need for development proposals to respect and respond to local landscape character, however, the draft policy approach in DPD48 sets an unachievable bar and would preclude most developments.
The second sentence of the policy states that “where a proposal would result in landscape harm, the general principle is that is should be refused unless there would be an over-riding benefit of the development for instance to meet an evidenced local housing need”

Yes

Representation ID: 102058

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Isabel Collins

it should be protected from development where you can't mitigate the effect of development

Yes

Representation ID: 102078

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Walkden

Agreed

Other

Representation ID: 102223

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Hallam Land

Agent: LRM Planning

t is an inescapable fact that to meet the development needs of the plan area there will be a change to the character and appearance of those locations where new development is situated.
One of the factors in determining where development should be located is the landscape value of a site and the visual effects of new development. It will be important that the extent of change is minimised, but it cannot be avoided.

No

Representation ID: 102420

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Crump

I am concerned to note that harm to the landscape can be over-ridden by the established need for local housing. This goes against the three objectives underpinning sustainable development- environmental, social and economic. If there is a negative impact on the environmental objective, then this points to the development being unsustainable, otherwise housing could trump everything else and be built anywhere.

Other

Representation ID: 102476

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land

Agent: Turley

Taylor Wimpey welcome recognition of the overriding considerations, for instance local housing need, where proposed development would result in some landscape harm.

This should be expanded to include instances where the principle of development is established through the NPPF and also where the benefit of providing development would outweigh the harm.

No

Representation ID: 102486

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: BDW Trading Limited

Agent: Knight Frank LLP

Draft Policy Direction 48 is disproportionate and lacks clarity, particularly in its approach to requiring Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments (LVIAs), which could place excessive burdens on small developments. The policy also places undue weight on landscape harm, potentially leading to a presumption against development on greenfield sites, despite the housing need. A more balanced approach is required to ensure landscape considerations do not override other key planning factors such as housing delivery and economic benefits and sustainable development.

No

Representation ID: 102534

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Karen Rollason

Too vague.
By definition, development within landscape areas such within Arden, and particularly Ancient Arden, will have a disastrous impact, especially on the scale proposed for B1. Ancient field patterns, hedgerows, field ponds, winding sunken lanes gone forever. And it simply cannot be argued that the oak trees would be retained. They sit within a landscape which would be utterly ruined and possibly would not survive the soil impaction development would bring.

Yes

Representation ID: 102628

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Sue Cole

I support the policy to protect key views and vistas.

Yes

Representation ID: 102702

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Hatton Parish Council

Development of site B1 Land at Hatton would not be consistent with this policy.
A Housing needs Survey carried out in 2020 by WRRS found a need for 3 dwellings in Hatton Parish since when 150 have been built.

No

Representation ID: 104002

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Camille Newton

If a proposal will result in landscape harm it should be refused. The wording of 'unless there would be an over-riding benefit etc ' should be removed. It doesnt not seem reasonable that a development will be able to positively contribute towards enhancement of the character of the landscape, more likely it will at best minimise its impact. The wording 'will explore' and 'seek to avoid' are vague. There should be a clear commitment to having full Landscape Visual Impact Assessments for major developments, obtaining long term management and maintenance of landscape proposals and avoiding hard developed edges.

Yes

Representation ID: 104017

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Amarjit Gill

The landscape should be protected from development where it may be adversely affected by new building

Yes

Representation ID: 104249

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Margaret Halligan

Agree

Yes

Representation ID: 104366

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Norrie

The policy is not strong enough to rule out renewable developments, and is obviously not intended to do so, so no problem with this. Beautiful landscapes are nice.

No

Representation ID: 104909

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Susan Hood

Development should not be allowed in the area if it results in landscape harm. 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: 104936

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Ann Colley

agree