BASE HEADER
Do you broadly support the proposals in the Vision and Strategic Objectives: South Warwickshire 2050 chapter? If you have any additional points to raise with regards to this chapter please include them here.
No
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 93085
Derbyniwyd: 01/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mr Matt Sansom
Alot of the planned areas are in green belts. I can see that this is no concern to building over these areas if there is money to be made even if there is objection in the local area. This greatly adds to air pollution in the local area from industry and people travelling to said areas. Some areas that are shown to being assessed for growth are currently fields used as farm land and have livestock on them which more than ever should be preserved.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 93088
Derbyniwyd: 01/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mr Andrew Waters
The proposals are broadly sensible except there appears to be (at least) one major area not mentioned and this is the impact on agriculture and by implication food security. How much land is to be taken permanently out of food production and potentially how many small holdings/farms could become non-viable due the the percentage of land loss?
Other
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 93161
Derbyniwyd: 01/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Raymond Joyce
Strategic Objective 12 should be linked to identifying green belt land where it can be utilised for the provision of off-site BNG.
Strategic Objectives 8 & 9. The cultural and heritage assets in SW Warwickshire are exceptional and should be identified as such and recognised as essential to the 'beauty' of Warwickshire and should be given considerable weighting in planning future development, including avoiding any visual influence where there is currently none from housing or other built environment.
Strategic Objective 3 the need for 'timing' of new infrastructure should a paramount consideration in assessing any future housing development.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 93273
Derbyniwyd: 01/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Miss Phoebe Withnall
SO1: Very few places in Warwickshire have good transport links. Public transport outside the main hubs (Leamington, Nuneaton, Stratford, Warwick) is impractical, making it unclear how sustainable growth can be achieved. The proposed sites suggest this isn't being treated as a serious objective. Many locations lack the transport connections.
SO2: I support the recognition of the needs of traveller communities.
The response to concerns about prioritising unmet need from other authorities relies on the Duty to Cooperate without explaining how decisions will be made or whether local communities will have influence over how much additional housing Warwickshire takes on.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 93410
Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Bernard Davis
The plan needs to recognise the limitations of sustainable development within a largely rural area. The plan should not blindly accept imposed housing targets without questioning the need for the number and locations proposed. There are many existing urban areas in England which could take greater development, especially utilising denser (eg high rise) types of housing.
No
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 93499
Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mrs Jane Markham
The so-called Strategic Objectives, which are largely inconsistent one with the other provide a supposed justification for the authorisation of further building in an area already overcrowded and overburdened in the face of inadequate infrastructure of all types but principally the basic ones of roads/highways/transport, health provision, water supplies and education. As an illustration of this, please see SO6, SO7, SO8 and SO12 v SO3, SO4. It is common knowledge that Warwick DC is required to build 1100 or so new homes per year, not to mention employment-creation sites, which cannot be compatible
No
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 93516
Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mrs Jacqueline Sims
A town that has doubled in size in ten years, and according to this plan will double again in the next ten is not sustainable. Stratford council do not put their residents first. The roads are now crammed. The noise from traffic is unbearable. I, and other volunteers, are picking up litter at an unbelievable rate. The town no longer works for its people - it works for the developers, to line their pockets. The town is filthy, full of poorly behaved teenagers, graffiti everywhere going unchecked and full of drugs. Get a grip!
Other
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 93568
Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mrs Yvonne Joyce
Strategic Objective 12
This should include protecting the Green Belt for access to the countryside and promoting the area for biodiversity net gain.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 93571
Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mrs Laraine Back
Although I have answered "yes" to the question, there is no clarity by yourselves on how this is all going to be carried out.
The amount of housing suggested in Bearley & Henley is way too high regarding infrastructure.
No
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 93800
Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Miss Ann Collins
I do not support the volume of housing being considered for rural areas but understand the reasons. There is no mention of protecting wildlife habitats or providing swift boxes in new housing, which I consider fundamental to our environment.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 93955
Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mrs Beverley Comley
Most people I know commute to work as there are no suitable jobs in the locality and with long public transport commutes - most people rely on the car. Priority should be to develop small and medium businesses in the locality which are on existing fast public transport networks. Housing should be spread proportionally across all towns and villages
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 93971
Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Honington Parish Meeting
Honington Parish Meeting broadly supports the Vision and Strategic objectives as outlined in the chapter and throughout the document. However please refer to our concerns and objections regarding the inclusion of SG 17 which we believe in no way meets the objectives criteria as set out.
No
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 94002
Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mr William Senior
This list of objectives puts growth and development above all else, literally. For example, the fact that 'Protecting and enhancing our environmental assets' is as low as number 12 in the list when we are in the midst of an undeniable and scientifically proven global climate crisis, is deeply concerning and highly counterintuitive. In addition, this point states 'protecting what already exists' and yet many of the sites (including those now of a 'preferred' status') are Greenbelt countryside. This vision is not at all balanced.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 94017
Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Stuart Mace
Locations at the fringes of South Warwickshire need to work with the neighbouring authorities for what is intended within their plans, there is a real risk of creating sprawl and over-supply of housing in locations that are located far away from jobs, leisure, and education.
No
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 94203
Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Andrew Close
You have not considered all key issues referenced in bullet points under 3.1 including: 'Definitions of "strategic growth" and "Warwickshire's sustainable development needs" should be provided.' The fact that 60% of respondents at the I&O stage did not agree with the Vision, and you have dismissed this and not revisited/altered the Vision is worrying. The Vision fails to reflect SW and its unique characteristics; it is not spatial; it does not refer to any of towns/key features/development priorities. Unfortunately, it is meaningless. The objectives will not be achieved; is there a baseline; did the last plan meet its aims?
Other
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 94270
Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025
Ymatebydd: James Springate
The desire to protect our environmental assets is objective No.12.
This means that once you have achieved all the other objectives you will then realise you have destroyed so much countryside we will have lost our environmental assets. The vast areas assigned for housing is very destructive, and will significantly reduce the quality of life in Warwickshire.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 94295
Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mr Michael Sanderson
There are too many objectives. As an example SO6 and SO12 speak to different overarching principles and yet the biggest carbon capture opportunity is provided by tree planting.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 94324
Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025
Ymatebydd: phillip claydon
Though I broadly support the content of the proposals, I do not believe they will be achievable. House builders are well known for not providing what was promised. Proposals need backing by upfront investment and enforcement.
No
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 94420
Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025
Ymatebydd: mr alan markham
The so-called "Vision and Strategic Objectives" contains a large number of mutually self-contradictory proposals. Frankly, they are wholly meaningless without specifics and they ride roughshod through anything to do with environment/wildlife and conservation. The main objectives should be to render the existing area and its appurtenances liveable by improving the provision of services, rather than dressing up as something else a naked submission to the bureaucrats of Whitehall who are capable of conceiving no better solution than by further burdening an already overcrowded area with more and more people who sill inevitably increase the strain of an already unpleasant area
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 94522
Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Stratford upon Avon Town Centre Strategic Partnership
Yes, but given the open ended and aspirational principles it will be of limited value. It will need to be reviewed during the period of the plan
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 94574
Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mrs Jill Smith
No comment, broadly agree
Other
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 94580
Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Rainier Developments Ltd
Asiant : Turley
Yes, Rainier broadly agree with the Vision but consider that Strategic Objective 4 could be strengthened by making reference to the locational strengths of parts of the District, such as the M40 corridor, and the role such areas could play in delivering sustainable economic growth through the provision of industrial and logistics uses.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 94583
Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mrs Jill Smith
N/A
Other
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 94610
Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Judith Cheney
I would suggest that some of Shipston’s needs should be addressed before major development takes place - medical facilities, schools, roads - especially river crossings which will be totally inadequate if development takes place near Fell Mill. The local lanes leading towards Tysoe and onwards will become dangerous “rat-runs” as they are too narrow to accommodate traffic for work elsewhere. Tractors, agricultural lorries and livestock have nowhere else to go.
I was under the impression that building houses on flood plains was no longer appropriate.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 94621
Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mrs Jill Smith
N/N
Other
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 94629
Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Wythall Parish Council
A secondary school to support the educational needs of the new residents in new settlement sites A1 and A2 will be a major requirement; Worcestershire is known to have a lack of secondary school places and it can only be assumed that South Warwickshire is in a similar position. The apparent lack of proposals for a new local secondary school (or extended existing secondary school) within the catchment area of these new settlements will mean that school traffic will exacerbate congestion in surrounding areas, as new residents will need to commute out of area to reach an alternative secondary school.
No
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 94638
Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Stoford Developments Ltd
Strategic Objective 4 should be expended to reflect the direction of policy as per para 86 of the NPPF. The NPPF is clear that particular regard should be had to facilitating development to meet the needs of a modern economy. The objective should comment on the objectives of the Plan to facilitate this, and refer to Plan identifying suitable locations for uses such as laboratories, gigafactories, data centres, digital infrastructure, freight and logistics.
No
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 94644
Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mr Richard Lyttle
The road infrastructure in and around Warwick is already at maximum capacity at peak times, the A46 Warwick bye pass is regularly(several times a week) congested going south to the M40 junction 15 in the morning peak time and equally travelling north from the M40 junction onto the bye pass in the evening. In the event of a breakdown or collision the adjoining roads are blocked for hours at a time. Further development on major and adjoining routes to these bye pass, roads into Warwick and onto the M40 will result in severe congestion and pollution.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 94689
Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025
Ymatebydd: David Gosling
the SoA Council’s vision as written is not a vision. It is a statement of the “here and now”
Objective 1 – requires greater clarity on the meaning of “sustainable locations”
Objective 3 – requires greater emphasis on the necessary infrastructure being in place before completion of the development and preferably before it commences
Objective 5 – supporting “the most efficient use of land” could be interpreted as 100 dwellings/hectare.
Perhaps the solution here is to use footnotes/links to where in the Plan these considerations (eg density) are more tightly defined
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 94695
Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Bubbenhall Parish Council
The Vision and Strategic Objectives all establish a good set of standards to work to.