Yes

Representation ID: 86150

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Sandy McCaskie

N/A

Other

Representation ID: 87063

Received: 03/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Judith Corless

x

Yes

Representation ID: 87444

Received: 08/02/2025

Respondent: Cllr Andrew Day

None

Other

Representation ID: 89120

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

Subject to all the comments already made
Additionally it is vital that there is robust phasing plan in the plan to ensure that development occurs broadly evenly across the plan period and there is not a bulge of new development immediatly the plan is approved

Yes

Representation ID: 89167

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mr nigel Freeth

we need to limit the development of our green space to protect the environment and enhance the poor grade land to environmental projects and CO2 capture

Yes

Representation ID: 89168

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mr nigel Freeth

we must protect our green open spaces to farm or on poor grade land use this for environmental projects and CO2 capture

Yes

Representation ID: 89169

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mr nigel Freeth

N/A

Other

Representation ID: 89464

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Barrie Hayles

Neighbourhood Plans were put in place after vast time was spent by local communities with their elected representatives and should be fully supported by County/District planners without being undermined. Over development often with inadequate existing infrastructure has impacted badly on existing residents, reducing the quality of life. Roads/junctions, water/sewage pipework and health service accessibility and more have deteriorated in South Warwickshire for existing residents due to vastly increased pressure from concentrated population growth. This Plan with so much more development proposed exasperates the problems still further. Commenting on all its enormous complexities and implications is extremely difficult for residents.

Yes

Representation ID: 89763

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Compton Verney

n/a

No

Representation ID: 91608

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Maxine Mayer

The whole plan fails to address the Warwickshire Minerals Safeguarded Area (map attached). Whilst this valuable resource for sand and gravel presents financial benefits it can also reduce timely delivery or settlements and strategic growth areas -attached is WCC statutory consultation to the airfield planning application sent to you as an example of impact when EIA's have failed to address this impact.

Yes

Representation ID: 91731

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Norman

Sensible

No

Representation ID: 91841

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Matthew Hetherington

The proposed SG24 development raises significant concerns. Flooding risks (surface and foul) are high. Infrastructure, including transport and connectivity, is inadequate. Train services face parking and timing issues. Increased emissions from traffic, especially during motorway closures, will worsen air quality. Road conditions and access are poor, with many single-track roads. Expected road connections are unsuitable (S278) due to blind spots and biodiversity impacts. There's a lack of schools and medical facilities. The allocation of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is unclear. Waste management is problematic. The development threatens the village's community feel, historic woodland, and environmental assets, including the canal.

No

Representation ID: 92018

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Valerie Whittaker

With regard to site SG07 this land is Green Belt and the purposes of Green Belt to to stop urban sprawl and maintain a distance between towns and villages. In addition, the traffic generated by such an industrial site would cause huge problems for people using the A4177 trying to get to the A46 and beyond. Warwick itself has limited capacity for road expansion and the whole area would be gridlocked.

Other

Representation ID: 92665

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Bex Thomson

No comment

Yes

Representation ID: 93051

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Alison Blake

Above my pay grade to alter this

No

Representation ID: 93970

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carina Taylor

It's all too bitty, not joined up, communities will be isolated particularly in the Alcester and Bidford area who will benefit from job opportunities in Leamingtion and surrounding areas. Much better to build a whole New Town!

No

Representation ID: 94906

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford-upon-Avon Town Transport Group

Suggest adding definition of decentralized energy systems.

Yes

Representation ID: 95150

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Susan Frawley

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 95318

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Kineton Parish Council

No further comment

Yes

Representation ID: 95792

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Bloor Homes Western

Agent: Marrons

A number of amendments are proposed to align definitions with national policy.

Yes

Representation ID: 95875

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Tesh

yes

Yes

Representation ID: 95984

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Tesh

yes

Other

Representation ID: 97141

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Alcester Town Council

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’) has no comments on this Chapter.

Other

Representation ID: 97287

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Squab Hall Farm

Agent: Mr Jack Barnes

A number of amendments are proposed to align definitions with national policy.

No

Representation ID: 97309

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs June Holley

NA

Yes

Representation ID: 98144

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: William Davis Limited

Agent: Marrons

A number of amendments are proposed to align definitions with national policy.

Yes

Representation ID: 98625

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: X2 New Settlement Consortium

Agent: Mr Jack Barnes

A number of amendments are proposed to align definitions with national policy.

Yes

Representation ID: 99316

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs JILL CHAMBERS

n/a

Other

Representation ID: 99977

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Steven Simpson

I wasn't sure where else to put general comments so here we go:

From reading the responses to the first consolation it is clear there is a large gap in expectation and opinions between developers and residents on a number of points and the officers have pointed this out.
We the public have a right to expect that the council will protect our interests and opinions and not be swayed by the money being held up by developers and land promotors.

No

Representation ID: 100495

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Draper

C1 settlement proposal - comments
Existing infrastructure - will not support CI settlement proposal
Transport Assessment - Extra traffic will be forced onto the existing lanes and B roads during settlement construction and subsequent occupation. The surrounding Lanes have unsuitable narrow bridges over the extensive canal routes and also a height restricted railway bridge at Lapworth The major increase of construction traffic and new residents vehicles will increase hazards and dangers and will put pedestrians and horse riders at increased risk, and have a negative impact to the Wellbeing of the current residents of Kingswood, Rowington and Lapworth.