Other

ID sylw: 100569

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Campaign to Protect Rural England - Warwickshire

The 'Call for sites' is unnecessary and undesirable. The planning authorities have the knowledge to identify sites and locations for development which meet the draft Plan's objectives and should present them at consultation stage. The 'call for sites' results in landowners and holders of options having undue influence on the proposals. Thge presentation of these submitted sites then creates blight on areas, and concern and potentially distress for local residents where such sites are published.
The call for sites for commercial renewable energy (solar farms. wind farms and BESS battery complexes) is particularly damaging. This should be cancelled.

Other

ID sylw: 100584

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs june Goldsmith

I WAS UNAWEAR OF THE CONSULTATION UNTIL 5 DAYS AGO AND MOST OF MY FRIENDS WHERE ALSO UNAWARW OF IT I FEEL RATEPAYERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PERSONSALY INFORMED OF SUCH AN IMPORTANT CONSULTATION INVOLVING THE GREEN BELT

No

ID sylw: 100616

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Lee Clarke

Number and location of the proposed developments are unacceptable as local and district facilities could not cope, we already have water supply problems, traffic congestion, lack of school places (right up to secondary level and grammar schools), medical facilities are already strained.
Retaining green space should be a key long term objective.
Development of brownfield sites or regeneration of run down town centres into more practical housing solutions would be better options.

No

ID sylw: 100617

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Howard Easton

Madness!
The maps don't show HS2!
The proposals destroy prime agricultural land, which the country needs to feed itself!
The impact in the environment will catastrophic!
The West Midlands and Warwickshire currently have the most congested roads nationally.
The environmental damage will effect all human and wildlife.
Finally, this plan is for 50 years. WDC, WCC won't be here in less than 3 years!!!!
As I say, this is madness.

Protect England's "green and pleasant" land. Don't cover it with concrete.

No

ID sylw: 100635

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Miss Diana Hadley

No, it should not be necessary to build on productive well farmed agricultural land.
Flooding on X1 a real issue as the low ground floods regularly, just from fields.
The land is predominantly permenant grass which is great at sequestration carbon.
Congestion.
Road safety.
Infrastructure not robust enough.
GP surgeries, hospitals & schools already at capacity.
Close proximity to proposed gravel extraction.

No

ID sylw: 100690

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Miss Leanne Matthews

Roads need to be significantly improved before more housing and more traffic. The campden road is already like a motorway, and traffic is a big problem.

No

ID sylw: 100697

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Miss Leanne Matthews

The various studies that have been undertaken have failed to demonstrate how the highway infrastructure can be delivered satisfactorily.

Other

ID sylw: 100742

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Stratford District Council Green Group

In the next round there should be more guidance for parish councillors and general public. The drop in sessions should have more info, structure, and hands on help. District councillors can work with officers on this.

No

ID sylw: 100776

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Lucinda Wallis

Comments are regarding Wasperton Lane, Wasperton - specifically land fronting the roadside which is proposed for development: Objections are: This is a conservation site so such development is at odds with conservation, development has already been rejected for 5 houses, housing in that position would significantly impact the rural small hamlet and not be in keeping with other properties. Removing the established hedging would destroy the rural habitats and the view for properties opposite and behind.

Yes

ID sylw: 100789

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Rowington Landowner Consortium

Asiant : Knight Frank LLP

No comments.

No

ID sylw: 100813

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Keith Waitt

There is a feeling that the plan process has failed to adequately inform residents of developments at each stage.
Most residents in my neighbourhood knew nothing of the consultation period we are in . One resident stumbled across it by chance in mid-February, even though it has been an open forum since 10th January.
This has left us with the feeling, rightly or wrongly, that the authorities are purposely trying to push this through without letting residents know.

No

ID sylw: 100839

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Angela Whitford

I am very concerned that if a number of houses are built in or around Sambourne there is no provision for an increase in traffic ie new roads; not enough places for the local schools for all the children who could move into the area; not enough doctors, dentists and all the infrastructure that is required. There is already issues with flooding in the area and this could increase if it is not sorted.
There is the impact upon wildlife. At present there are a lot of beautiful wildlife around. if their habitat is destroyed they will not survive.

No

ID sylw: 100902

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Simon Aldridge

The process for feeding back is complex and not easy to navigate for vulnerable users and is therefore not in line with good practice in terms of equality and diversity. The proposals are also unacceptable and not thought through - the land by Hockley Heath (ref 278) for example - if this were to go ahead it would crush the village dure to lack of infrastructure.

Yes

ID sylw: 100920

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Dr Nicola Sawle

recgonise that the amount of information that needs to be highlighted to residents is significant but the comment process is somewhat long winded and may be daunting to many

Other

ID sylw: 100964

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Adrian Summers on behalf of the Summers Family

Asiant : The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

The process envisages a Part 1 and Part 2 plan. Even if the decision to sift out the site at Claybank Farm is reversed it would still mean that our client might not find out whether their sites would form part of the plan for many years beyond the current 2027 adoption date proposed. This sort of delay is unjustifiable in the urgent context for growth not just of the local but also the national economy.

The distinction between Parts 1 and 2 of the local plan is unclear. What is the timescale for Part 2 likely to be?

No

ID sylw: 100974

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Phoebe Bosco

Why must we dig up and concrete the very few green spaces we have left to accommodate more housing that people cannot afford? Hockley Heath has not got sufficient amenities for the current people living there, how can we accomodate more without putting additional strain on the infrastructure. There are properties and brownfield sites standing empty in the wider area with the necessary amenities around that would be more suitable. From an environmental standpoint, leave the green alone as its the best chance we have of combatting the ever rising CO2 emissions that more people would produce.

No

ID sylw: 101087

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Richard Culley

you never do any consultations the ones you do are a sham and its a foregone conclusion.

Other

ID sylw: 101099

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Dr Chris Clews

At best there will be some overlap/duplication between chapters - better than omissions.

Other

ID sylw: 101138

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Bart Slob

The process is extremely complex, making it difficult for residents to engage effectively. The short timeframe (10 January – 7 March 2025) limits meaningful participation, especially given the scale of the proposals. More active outreach, such as public meetings and clearer summaries, is needed. Additionally, greater transparency on how feedback will influence decisions is essential. The Call for Sites process should allow alternative proposals, particularly to prevent unnecessary Green Belt loss. Without improvements in accessibility, engagement, and clarity, I cannot fully support the approach outlined.

No

ID sylw: 101244

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Dr Cornelia Beyers

I do not agree that the parcels of land in Sherbourne has any use of development due to poor infrastructure, drainage systems, being adjacent to conservation are and the need to protect certain areas of historical value from overcrowding and encroachment.

No

ID sylw: 101258

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Simon Clegg

I object to SG19. There is insufficient infrastructure in place to support the housing and mixed usage proposed. In particular there are insufficient river crossings which already leads to heavy congestion. The medical facilities will not support an increased population. There are not sufficient schools.

No

ID sylw: 101463

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Vincent Rollason

This development is not good for the area.

No

ID sylw: 101475

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Aaron Cahoon

Strongly disagree with the proposed SG17 site in Shipston on Stour. I live on Fell Mill Lane and the site partially floods , thereis no infrastructure to accommodate 1600homes, I don't want to lose the waste recycling centre due to next closest one is wellsbourne miles away. The schools are full, the doctors is full. The bridge is a bottle neck with traffic only able to cross in one direction at a time. The concreting over will dramatically increase the river level which already flood's due to surface water filling up the basin quicker. This would be an environmental disaster.

Yes

ID sylw: 101559

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Stratford-on-Avon Town Council

Stratford Town Council (“STC”) broadly supports the development of the South Warwickshire Local Plan and the associated consultation stages being utilised.

Other

ID sylw: 101674

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Grevayne Properties Limited

Asiant : The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

The process envisages a Part 1 and Part 2 plan. The distinction between Parts 1 and 2 is unclear. Our clients might not find out whether their land forms part of the development plan for many years beyond the current 2027 adoption date proposed.

It should also be recognised that it is highly unlikely that any significant contribution will be forthcoming from a new settlement for at least 10 years. Our clients’ land, at Sites 490 and 491, is immediately available and could contribute to the Districts’ housing requirements in the short term.

Other

ID sylw: 101704

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Grevayne Properties Limited

Asiant : The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

The plan states that "Five overarching principles will determine how this development is delivered. These could apply anywhere and imply there is nothing distinctly ‘South Warwickshire’ about them.

The potential for housing delivery on our clients’ land at Baddesley Clinton (site ref: 490) would contribute to Government’s objectives to accelerate housebuilding over the next 5 years. The location of the land within Baddesley Clinton would also ensure development in a sustainable location.

South Warwickshire is characterised by tight urban areas and numerous rural settlements and the policies of the development plan should better reflect that character.

Yes

ID sylw: 102016

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: BDW Trading Limited

Asiant : Knight Frank LLP

No comments

No

ID sylw: 102088

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Helen Roberts

The format of the consultation appears designed to discourage people from taking part - it is not designed in an easy to follow way and is therefore potentially discriminatory in who is able to respond

Yes

ID sylw: 102461

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Jonathan Turner

Yes however it could be easier to find

Yes

ID sylw: 102518

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Margaret Halligan

Communication regarding this has been very poor - people in my area were made aware by another local resident making a comment on Facebook. Without that, people would have been unaware of the plans and consultation timeframe on something which would significantly impact them - that approach is not acceptable.