No

ID sylw: 89801

Derbyniwyd: 21/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr SIMON BEACHAM

SO1: Don't believe this development is proportionate in scale and transport links cannot improve inevitable bottle necks at J15 M40, Stratford Birmingham Road and Henley.
SO2: Support need for new homes for all needs
SO3: The site is already mainly a flood risk. The road infrastructures won't work and small local lanes will become shortcuts to avoid the ques, this is so blatantly obvious.
SO4: new jobs doing what, more supermarkets?
SO5: There are no buildings which can be reused?
SO6: 6700 new homes will not mitigate carbon emissions!!!
SO8: this development will not protect our rich village Shakespeare heritage.

No

ID sylw: 90048

Derbyniwyd: 22/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Katie Walker

The dismissal of the concerns of 60% of people who did not support the Vision is worrying. By which measures are you identifying housing and employment needs? What percentage of the proposed population increase through the provision of housing will be able to find employment opportunities in the area (directly created by the development)?

Yes

ID sylw: 90051

Derbyniwyd: 22/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Ruth Smith

I support the objectives expressed, but they do not apply to West of Studley Parcel SG22. There is no local capacity available for the proposed huge increase in population; doctors and schools already have waiting lists, there is no 6th form or college, no NHS dentist. No local work. No local transport. The land is fertile, farmed greenbelt, widely used by the local community for walking etc. There are deer on that land. Air pollution is already high in the village. How can you enhance and increase access to green spaces by building on them?

Yes

ID sylw: 90054

Derbyniwyd: 22/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Catherine Hewson

• Do we have adequate resources to plan, deliver, monitor & review the implementation of this plan?

No

ID sylw: 90107

Derbyniwyd: 22/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Adrian Hopkinson

Whilst agreeing with most of these objectives, the Net Zero Carbon target is best met by not building houses in the countryside as there is always a transport requirement to an industrial site, or community hub. Not clear what 'all our communities'; means. It might mean creating housing for people who want to travel to London: they are hardly going to be good community members. Developimg opportuniteis for jobs sounds good, but recent research has established that new jobs come mostly in the area of university towns, and/or mostly in the Cities. (Triumph of the City by Edward Glaeser).

No

ID sylw: 90160

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Susan Ford

The newly built homes around Kenilworth sit empty. The other houses estates being built are unfinished.
We do NOT need any further housing.

The open land off Rounds Hill/ Rouncil lane is a much needed space for fresh air, pollution free walks. Mental health is Paramount to the future and destroying this land is not acceptable.

This land is not suitable for building.

Yes

ID sylw: 90289

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Jane Patey

The strategy is good but the vast development which would swamp the village of Wilmcote would certainly not protect or enhance our existing green space and would permanently damage the local environment

Yes

ID sylw: 90301

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Madeline Ashton

Agree with objectives

No

ID sylw: 90375

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Jayne Jones

I agree with the many of the vision statements, but feel strongly that the proposals do not meet these, with most doing the exact opposite. Using the data suggested over 27000 hectares of greenfield sites are needed until 2025 in Warwick and Stratford alone. To consider this size in real terms, that is a bigger than Birmingham! This is not sustinable in Warwickshire, yet alone the rest of England, as the beauty of our countryside will be lost for ever.
This is not sustainable, is not delivering the required housing (only 40% affordable, presumunably to appease developers), has a detrimenal

No

ID sylw: 90389

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Dr Louise Stewart

Plans to build 6700 additional homes in Wilmcote, Pathlow and Bearley go against all the principles outlined here. There is insufficient infrastructure with limited capacity to expand eg dualling of A3400 to Henley is impossible due to existing housing, train bridges, care facilities. There are no jobs in Stratford for this number of houses so people will commute to Birmingham and surrounding towns. Insufficient capacity of public transport means people will drive, exacerbating congestion, pollution and damaging health and the environment.

Other

ID sylw: 90411

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Simon Fox

When making decisions on the appropriateness of a site to a principle proper life cycle assessments should be made, and not perception judgements.

Yes

ID sylw: 90486

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Michael Checkley

I agree with the objectives laid out.

Yes

ID sylw: 90577

Derbyniwyd: 24/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Warwick Town Council

N/a

Other

ID sylw: 90633

Derbyniwyd: 24/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Oliver Ashford

Whilst I support the strategic objectives, I don't believe they have been correctly adopted or followed throughout this process - especially when identifying sites / housing needs. As an example, Strategic Obj 1 is not been considered when you look at the level of housing you are trying to allocate to the small village of Hockley Heath SG24. Also Strategic Obj 5 should be reviewing change of use from offices to apartments or similar in areas that can handle higher housing numbers and footfall

Yes

ID sylw: 90656

Derbyniwyd: 24/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Martin Littlewood

Lots of words.... and the objectives are commendable but are they achievable? We are presently seeing more and more local services reduced or cancelled, many of which would have been objectives of WDC or SDC in previous proposals.
Anyone carried out any research to ascertain what percentage of previous proposals were actually achieved?

Other

ID sylw: 90729

Derbyniwyd: 24/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Maxine Mayer

Whilst I broadly support the vision and strategies, this preferred options document if adopted in some areas will actually reduce the councils ability to deliver on them, the councils both admit that they are at a very low starting point with many of them. The proposals will have a very high negative impact particularly in air quality, access to healthcare, road congestion, sterilisation of sand and gravel, loss of BMV land that is in food production, increased flooding and heritage assets.

Yes

ID sylw: 90824

Derbyniwyd: 24/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Nigel Briggs

Strategic Objective 6.
To achieve net zero by 2050- The specification for houses should be set so that all are required to be fitted with solar panels and heat pumps and not be fitted with gas boilers; they should be built to 'Passivehouse'-equivalent standards and certified as such.
The siting of new build should be within the 15-20 minute to amenities criterion to make sure that 'Active Travel' is feasible.
Strategic objective 9. 'Active Travel' holidays/ short breaks are a growing market, facilitated by objective 6.
Objective 10. Again, facilitated 'Active Travel' helps achieve a fitter community.

Yes

ID sylw: 90836

Derbyniwyd: 24/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Matthew Schofield

I broadly support the proposals. As to whether these will be implemented based on the housing that is already being built in Leamington is questionable. For instance, given the huge increase in traffic on the roads in Leamington Spa, can the developments to the south of the town be considered "sustainable". There is no indication from these developments that any efforts have been made to make a town less dependent on cars with more and more residents dependent on retail parks rather than local community shops.

No

ID sylw: 90888

Derbyniwyd: 24/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs sarah wood

No. I think South Warwickshire's beauty and appealing nature will be largely undone by housing development. In particular SG24,this is an area that will not benefit from more houses and in parallel destroying the green belt area where nature thrives.
connecting people to places - the road network in SG24 cannot sustain more cars and traffic. It is a cut through from the M42 when there are issues through to the next junction.

No

ID sylw: 90983

Derbyniwyd: 25/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Colin Sanders

N/A

Other

ID sylw: 90986

Derbyniwyd: 25/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Canal & River Trust

The Canal & River Trust considers that the canal network has the potential to contribute positively towards helping to achieve the Vision and meet the Strategic Objectives.

Yes

ID sylw: 90997

Derbyniwyd: 25/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Julian Brown

Agree

Yes

ID sylw: 91000

Derbyniwyd: 25/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Miss Madeleine McKay

Creating attractive places - any new builds built locally should be sympathetic to local heritage, other areas are doing this e.g., https://www.whathouse.com/architecture-and-design/traditional-style-new-homes-cotswolds/
Infrastructure - more Sport and Recreation sites are needed in Leamington - the one leisure centre is not sufficient and popular classes are far too busy showing the demand!
Enriching the tourism potential - https://www.visitcheltenham.com/ is an excellent example of a high quality website which is desperately needed for visitors of South Warwickshire, there isn't enough information online about what you can do and see in Leamington if visiting Warwick and Stratford.
Connecting people - more cycle routes!

No

ID sylw: 91100

Derbyniwyd: 25/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs liz jackson

The scale of the proposed develoment conflicts strongly with the objections and vision statements, showing the whole process is a sham. The scale is obscene – For example, site SG23 will almost triple the current number of homes in Henley, overwhelming infrastructure and obliterating our community identity. The proposed development makes a mockery of Strategic Objectives 7 and 8, which claim to "protect heritage" and "respect local character." Our medieval market town's heritage assets would be irreparably damaged by this disproportionate, unsustainable urban sprawl.

No

ID sylw: 91144

Derbyniwyd: 25/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Janet Johnson

Well it has lots of uplifting verbiage about South Warwickshire but the proposals lack a cohesive vision of the future.
Limiting areas of development to land submitted by landowners seems a false starting point for developing a plan.
Have a look at New Towns approach .

Yes

ID sylw: 91336

Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Transport for West Midlands

In respect of rail, we broadly endorse the position outlined by Warwickshire County Council in their October 2024 “South Warwickshire Local Plan Strategic Transport and Education Assessment of New Settlement Options”. https://www.southwarwickshire.org.uk/doc/213171/name/SWLP%20Strategic%20Transport%20and%20Education%20Assessment%20of%20New%20Settement%20Options%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdf

Other

ID sylw: 91337

Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Transport for West Midlands

In relation to sites F1, F2, F3 and G3, we would particularly stress that the challenges associated with any new station proposal between Leamington Spa and Banbury are likely to be significant. Currently only the only passenger trains on this route are long distance services provided Cross Country or Chiltern Railways’ Birmingham to London trains. There is highly unlikely to be a positive strategic, economic or business case for stopping such services at a new local station.

Other

ID sylw: 91338

Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Transport for West Midlands

In relation to site E1 it should be noted that, in addition to a positive business case, any reopening of the railway between Stratford and Honeybourne would require an affordable solution to reinstating the line through Stratford itself and be dependent on as yet unfunded upgrades to the North Cotswold Line between Oxford, Honeybourne and Worcester.

Yes

ID sylw: 91348

Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Norman Thomas

Its concerning that the development proposals in the SWLP do not follow the strategic objectives. These objectives are agreeable soundbites which the SWLP completely disregards.

No

ID sylw: 91361

Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Michelle Mendoza

My comments are with particular concern of one of the proposed green sites, namely F1 adjoining Ufton village.
There is no representation on the maps of the already agreed planning permissions for solar farms around the Ufton and Radford Semele. Another large plant is awaiting planning consideration.

The proposed site would be situated in the middle of massive solar farms, which isn’t ideal for the residents.