BASE HEADER
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction-48- Protecting and Enhancing Landscape Character?
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 95310
Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025
Ymatebydd: David Gosling
no further comment
No
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 95316
Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Alamo
Asiant : Harris Lamb
Whether an LVIA is needed should be determined on a case by case basis and not just all major developments be required to submit one.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 95389
Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mr Lee Tallen
Areas of special character should not be touched - i cannot see how such areas could be 'enhanced' by development
No
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 95482
Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Ms Sue Cuff
Development should not be allowed in the area, and the caveats should be removed (such as that ‘unless there would be an over-riding benefit, for instance to meet an evidenced local housing need’). The Local Plan should be allocating suitable land for housing need.
No
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 95541
Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mr Martin Freeman
Development should not be allowed in the area, and the caveats should be removed (such as
that ‘unless there would be an over-riding benet, for instance to meet an evidenced local
housing need’). The Local Plan should be allocating suitable land for housing need.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 95980
Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mr Paul Tesh
Definition is required of what constitutes ‘major’ development as it should be proportional to the size of the settlement where the development is proposed (eg a 100 dwelling development on the edge of say Stratford-upon-Avon won’t have as large a visual impact as say a 20 dwelling development on the edge of a small village). Furthermore, the visual assessment needs to take into account the wider visual context of where the existing settlement is (eg is it in a bowl) and the impact that the proposed development will have on the wider area (ie will it encroach on the skyline).
No
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 96092
Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Ms Tamsin Kashap
Development should not be allowed in the area, and the caveats should be removed (such as that ‘unless there would be an over-riding benefit, for instance to meet an evidenced local housing need’). The Local Plan should be allocating suitable land for housing need.
No
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 96151
Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mrs Rosemary Collier
Development should not be allowed in the area, and the caveats should be removed (such as that ‘unless there would be an over-riding benefit, for instance to meet an evidenced local housing need’). The Local Plan should be allocating suitable land for housing need.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 96375
Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Southam Town Council
Southam Town, District and County elected representatives support this Policy Direction.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 96500
Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Shipston Town Council
Definition is required of what constitutes a ‘major’ development it should be proportional to the size of the settlement where the development is proposed (for example a 100 dwelling development on the edge of Stratford-upon-Avon won’t have as large a visual impact as a 20 dwelling development on the edge of a small village). Furthermore, the visual assessment needs to take into account the wider visual context of where the existing settlement is (for example is it in a bowl) and the impact that the proposed development will have on the wider area (ie will it encroach on the skyline).
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 96701
Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Janet Gee
no further comment
No
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 96859
Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mrs Margaret Jeffery
In proposed site BW building 6700 houses on open fields in an area of scenic beauty will obviously have a harmful impact on the areas distinctive character and appearance.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 97118
Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Alcester Town Council
This approach is agreed by 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’) but further detail is required.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 97180
Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025
Ymatebydd: John Dinnie
This should take account of the landscape harm already inflicted by previous development. Improvements and enhancements to landscape should be encouraged and enabled to rebalance the the effects of existing housing development.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 97199
Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mrs Emily Morris
Areas where you can mitigate the effect of development on the landscape should be protected from all future development
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 97239
Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025
Ymatebydd: Tysoe Parish Council
Yes
Other
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 97413
Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Godwin Developments
We acknowledge the policy direction in Policy 48, aiming to protect landscape settings and significant features. Our land interests at Aylesbury Road lie within the Warwickshire Green Belt and are not subject to other landscape designations, but a Public Right of Way crosses the site. The area is characterised by small fields and mature hedgerow trees. Established tree belts provide screening, and the site is relatively level and enclosed. A commissioned Grey Belt Assessment suggests that the proposed development would be sympathetic to the local character and limit visible impacts, except for views from a specific Public Right of Way.
No
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 97487
Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Spitfire Bespoke Homes
Asiant : Harris Lamb
Landscape impact is just one of many matters that needs to be considered as part of the determination process. The draft wording of the policy Direction 48 would appear to elevate the importance of landscape harm beyond other considerations.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 97641
Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mr Martin Winter
N/A
No
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 97769
Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mr Gary Jeffery
Land between Bearley and Wilmcote (BW) will bw impacted by the proposed settlement in terms of vista and tranquility.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 97908
Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mr Jonathan Stafford-scott
Areas where you can’t mitigate the effect of development on the
landscape should be protected from development.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 97972
Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Brenda Stewart
I agree
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 98023
Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mrs Helen Little
Y
No
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 98033
Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mr Barnabas Harrison
This Policy Direction is not sufficiently stringent, as SG24 appears to propose to construct infrastructure over an area of landscape which would be fundamentally harmed by such construction. This is particularly applicable in the SG24 area between Stratford Road, Aylesbury Road, Box Trees Road, and Grange Road, where the proposed development site would result in coalesence between Hockley Heath and Dorridge, via the sites proposed in the Solihull local plan which are immediately adjacent. Additionally, the Solihull Plan is very clear that Hockley Heath is only suitable for small scale development, which SG24 is not.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 98479
Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mr Kim James
Salford Priors as a rural parish prioritizes protecting the landscape by ensuring development respects local character, heritage, and tranquillity. Proposals must avoid landscape harm, with refusal being the default unless an evidenced local housing need justifies it. High-quality landscaping is required to mitigate impacts, prevent coalescence, and enhance amenity. Major developments may require Landscape Visual Impact Assessments, and a minimum five-year maintenance plan should be explored. The NPPF (paras. 135 & 187) supports visually attractive, well-integrated designs that protect valued landscapes and biodiversity. Evidence should be gathered to ensure future development remains appropriate, sensitive, and sustainable.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 98589
Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Salford Priors Parish Council
Salford Priors as a rural parish prioritises protecting the landscape by ensuring development respects local character, heritage, and tranquillity. Proposals must avoid landscape harm, with refusal being the default unless an evidenced local housing need justifies it. High-quality landscaping is required to mitigate impacts, prevent coalescence, and enhance amenity. Major developments may require Landscape Visual Impact Assessments, and a minimum five-year maintenance plan should be explored. The NPPF (paras. 135 & 187) supports visually attractive, well-integrated designs that protect valued landscapes and biodiversity. Evidence should be gathered to ensure future development remains appropriate, sensitive, and sustainable.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 98700
Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mrs Alice Hibbert
Areas where you can’t mitigate the affect of development on the landscape should be protected from development.
Caveats should be removed (such as that ‘unless there would be an over-riding benefit, for instance to meet an evidenced local housing need’). The Local Plan should be allocating suitable land for housing that doesn't have a detrimental affect on the landscape character.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 98743
Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mrs Ginny White
The caveat "unless there would be an over-riding benefit, for instance to meet an evidenced local housing need" renders the policy meaningless. It is likely that local housing need can always be evidenced, so a meaningful Local Plan should always protect landscape character and allocate suitable land for housing need. You have to call a halt somewhere.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 98870
Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Philip Sykes
Dunsmore & Feldon Area 96) was completely omitted from material prepared by external consultants on behalf of SWLP to be used as evidence in the development of the SWLP. This compromises the evidence and the subsequent statements made in the HELLA, for example. Considering that such consultancy is funded by public monies, then serious questions need to be asked and conclusions re-evaluated.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 98899
Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Friends of Radfords Green Environment (FORGE)
Development should not be allowed in the area, and the caveats should be removed (such as that ‘unless there would be an over-riding benefit, for instance to meet an evidenced local housing need’). The Local Plan should be allocating suitable land for housing need.