Yes

Representation ID: 99791

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

NA

Yes

Representation ID: 99810

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Cooper

Local roads will suffer but area shown looks to be relatively small

Yes

Representation ID: 99906

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Neil Eaton

Support required development on non green belt land

Yes

Representation ID: 100057

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Philip Wall

Development should prioritise brownfield sites over Green Belt land. Urban and previously developed areas already have infrastructure in place, reducing pressure on roads, schools, and healthcare. These sites are closer to transport links and jobs, making them more sustainable. Using brownfield land prevents environmental damage, protects biodiversity, and preserves historic landscapes. It also helps maintain community identity by preventing urban sprawl. Additionally, brownfield areas are often better suited for flood mitigation. By focusing on these locations, new housing can be delivered responsibly without harming the countryside or overburdening local services.

Yes

Representation ID: 100286

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Carter

New development should focus on previously developed sites, not destroy protected Green Belt land. Urban and repurposed areas already have infrastructure in place, preventing additional strain on roads, schools, and healthcare. These locations are also closer to transport links and jobs, making them more sustainable. Using non-Green Belt land prevents irreversible environmental harm, safeguards biodiversity, and preserves important landscapes. It also protects communities from urban sprawl and helps to prevent flooding. By focusing on these sites, new housing can be delivered in a responsible way—without sacrificing the countryside or placing unbearable pressure on already stretched local services.

Yes

Representation ID: 100376

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Aimee Carter

New housing should be developed on land that has already been built on, not on protected Green Belt land. Urban areas and brownfield sites already have the infrastructure to support new developments, reducing the pressure on roads, schools, and healthcare.
Building in non-Green Belt areas also means:
• Less environmental damage and better protection for wildlife.
• More sustainable transport options, reducing long commutes and carbon emissions.
• Preventing towns and villages from merging and losing their unique identities.
• Reducing flood risks caused by overdevelopment.
Destroying the Green Belt isn’t the answer—there are much better options available.

Yes

Representation ID: 100592

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Residents Concerned for Kenilworth South

Support housing development on non-green belt land.

Yes

Representation ID: 100682

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Catesby Estates

Agent: Mr Will Whitelock

Catesby Estates support the Spatial Growth Strategy in the Part 1 Plan, particularly the strategic allocations for new settlements and urban extensions. The land east of Banbury Road in Southam is part of the SG12 Southam Group Strategic Growth Location, showing high sustainability performance. Identified as a suitable reserve housing site by Stratford-on-Avon District Council, it spans 11.68 ha and can accommodate up to 200 dwellings, alongside public open spaces and community facilities. This site is deliverable and suitable for meeting housing needs in South Warwickshire and surrounding areas.

Yes

Representation ID: 100765

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land - Wellesbourne

We consider land to the east of Southam should be allocated for residential development and a new school.

No

Representation ID: 100850

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Collyer

Southam already has seen significant growth and development. The local services and amenities are not good enough to support more.

Yes

Representation ID: 101115

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Hallam Land Management Limited

Agent: Mr Jack Barnes

Hallam Land request that the SWLP allocates south-east Southam as a location for development, due to the joint and collaborative approach from landowners, the alignment with the spatial strategy, alignment with the overarching principles of the SWLP, and infrastructure that can be delivered. Southam is the best ranked SGL in South Warwickshire (in the HELAA), South-east Southam is the best location for growth in Southam.

Yes

Representation ID: 101228

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: AC Lloyd - Sites 64 and 301

Agent: Delta Planning

AC Lloyd fully supports Strategic Growth Location SG12 (Southam). This location includes the following sites submitted by AC Lloyd through the call for sites: land north of Leamington Road submitted for residential use (ref: 64); and land south of Leamington Road (ref: 301) submitted for employment use.

This Growth Option is consistent with the identification of Southam as a Main Rural Centre being suitable for new housing and employment in the Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy (2016) and the AC Lloyd sites provide a logical sustainable expansion to the west of the village. See full response.

No

Representation ID: 101896

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Barwood Land

Agent: Savills (UK) Ltd

It's unclear what status SGLs will have in developing future versions of the SWLP. The Southam SGL is a suitable, sustainable, deliverable opportunity for strategic-scale development. However, the parcel selection is illogical, which impacts assessment in the Sustainability Appraisal. Land at Welsh Road and Daventry Road, Southam was not included in the SGL despite better HELAA performance than other Southam sites to the west and north. The site is within the Spatial Growth Strategy Priority Area, while some sites included in the SGL are not. Inclusion of less sustainable sites skews Southam's outcomes.

A fairer, more robust approach would be to select the best-performing HELAA sites to test the merits of the SGLs. The SA methodology is too rigid and applied to large, unconnected areas of land without accounting for the proposed form of development or mitigation measures. The SA outputs have little value for plan-making. Of greater value are site-specific assessments through the HELAA combined with an understanding of the broad sustainability of places.

Specific comments on SA Objectives for SG12:

Climate Change
Agree all SGLs should have the same score. This should be "0" in the absence of any detailed analysis on the climate change impact of not meeting future growth needs.

Flood Risk
All sites should be assigned "0". Testing broad areas without regard to form, scale or mitigation is meaningless.

Biodiversity
Masterplanning measures could avoid or mitigate development impacts on protected habitats. The broad comparison is helpful so retain same scores.

Landscape
Particularly sensitive to site-selection. In Southam land to the west is considerably more sensitive than land to the east. If better-performing locations were selected as part of the SGL then lower impacts would have been assessed. Revise to '-'.

Cultural Heritage
Particularly sensitive to site selection. Selecting Land at Welsh Road and Daventry Road, Southam rather than more sensitive land to the West would reduce the impact of the SGL. Revise to '-'.

Pollution
Meaningless without clear understanding of the proposed form and type of development. Score should be same for each SGL but no rationale for this being negative.

Natural Resources
Land to the South and East of Southam is Grade 3 and 4 with no BMV. We suggest minor negative rather than major negative. Currently 23 of 24 SGLs are scored equally against this objective despite national Planning Policy prioritising use of non-BMV land.

Waste
Agree SGLs should score equally but not major negative. New homes are needed and no reason to assume the SGLs are worse than alternatives.

Housing
Score agreed.

Health
Meaningful assessment impossible without further details on proposals. Consistent minor negative not unreasonable.

Accessibility
Agree with a consistent score. Strategic sites would enhance public transport and active travel. Measuring performance without understanding opportunities for enhancement through development would be incomplete.

Education
Consistent neutral score is the only option until a more in-depth analysis is carried out of existing provision and opportunities to enhance through growth.

Economy
Support consistent positive score as all residential-led SGLs will have a positive impact.

Other

Representation ID: 102206

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Niall Shimmin

Some zones seem sensible but needs to come with infrastructure uplift.

Yes

Representation ID: 102577

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Andrews

Development on non-green belt land should be prioritised over development on green belt. Total housing needs can be met without developing on green belt so morally not right to remove green belt without exceptional cause.
These areas are better supported with existing infrastructure and transport network without requiring major investment on more remote, less connected areas.
The opportunity in terms of yield is higher in these areas so there is a duty to fulfil the housing needs in the most responsible way considering this and the green belt obligations.

Yes

Representation ID: 102722

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Liz Churchill

As a general rule, I would prefer to see non Green-belt sites being used.

Other

Representation ID: 102775

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Severn Trent Water

This development site will likely require treatment at Itchen Bank (STW) Treatment Works, this Wastewater Treatment Works has medium capacity and very high environmental constraints. Due to the size of the development, it is recommended that network upgrades will be required, alongside hydraulic modelling and engagement with STW. Overall this development site is considered a high risk location, there is some capacity however in order to accommodate growth, infrastructure upgrades will be required and we would need to work closely to understand build timelines, in order to plan accordingly.

No

Representation ID: 103036

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural England - Warwickshire

SG12 - development around Southam. Southam has already expanded beyond its natural boundaries (including byond its bypass). The town is car-dependent with relatively poor public transport. Recent housing (on the north and south of the town) is some distance from the town centre and has limited services. Further housing areas would increase unsustainable development. Further housing will mean more traffic on the roads to/from the town with consequwences of delays and reduced road safety. SG12 should not be proceeded with. Small infill sites within the town can deliver social housing to meet local need.

Yes

Representation ID: 103108

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Neal Appleton

Whilst the aim is for people to live close to where they work and for Active Travel to be a priority, it must be acknowledged that people often choose to reside and work in different places. Commuting is the norm and the SWLP must accommodate this. Settlement expansion and locations of new settlements must be supported by transport infrastructure.

Yes

Representation ID: 103278

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Keith Allan

If building of new houses is to go ahead then building on non-Green belt land is more appropriate

Yes

Representation ID: 103288

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Keith Allan

If building of new If the construction of new houses is to proceed, it is more appropriate to construct on non-Green Belt land.

No

Representation ID: 103511

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Sarah Shalgosky

A detailed impact plan is required to review the effect on Long Itchinghton Quarry LWS and River Itchen PLWS

Yes

Representation ID: 103684

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Steve Churchill

I believe that all new development should be made only on Non Green Belt or Brown Field sites.

No

Representation ID: 104004

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Malachy Clarke

I oppose the developments in the field off of Cox Crescent (Plan Ref 469 and 633) and the adjacent fields near Green Acres Nursing Home (Plan Ref: 437, 446, 462 and 478).

While I understand the need for housing development, I believe that this particular project would have significant negative impacts on our environment, community character, and quality of life.

No

Representation ID: 104099

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Amanda Waters

Not close to transport links to major employment areas and would impact the surrounding countryside

No

Representation ID: 104267

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Sally Shaw

Na

Yes

Representation ID: 104305

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Carl Bergstrom

Why make it modest? Build.

Yes

Representation ID: 104444

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sharon Ward

I support the proposed strategic growth location SG12 because it focuses development on non-greenbelt land, using existing infrastructure rather than requiring costly new roads and services. This approach enables much-needed housing while avoiding damage to rural landscapes, important footpaths, and the area’s heritage.

Other

Representation ID: 104551

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Dunning

YES ONLY IF the development is high density, linked with public transport and active travel infrastructure.

Do not build detached homes anywhere.
Painted bicycle gutters are NOT active travel infrastructure.
A bus is a bad public transport solution.

Yes

Representation ID: 104586

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kay Williams

This is not green belt land so you may go ahead.