BASE HEADER
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction-48- Protecting and Enhancing Landscape Character?
No
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 99341
Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Vistry Strategic Land - Wellesbourne
It would be entirely disproportionate for a LIVA to be submitted for the majority of schemes of this size.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 99694
Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Ms Gillian Padgham
agree
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 100087
Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mr Steven Coulsting
Protecting and Enhancing Landscape Character is a very positive policy
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 100110
Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Welford on Avon Parish Council
This must include the local environments around existing village boundaries. this imposition of large housing developments on the outter edges of villages destroys the views, vistas and landscapes around them.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 100463
Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mrs Rebecca Loades
Please take particular consideration for shielding solar farms. They are unsightly and should be screened as much as possible.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 100503
Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mrs Lorraine Grocott
Areas where the effect of development cannot be mitigated should be protected.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 100555
Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mr Andrew Newbould
na
Other
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 100871
Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Ms Judy Steele
I'd rather you implemented rather than explored. Major developments should have full LVA
No
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 100935
Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Vistry Strategic Land - Wellesbourne
The Policy is disproportionate and unclear. Any development of a greenfield site is likely to have a degree of landscape harm as it will result in any development taking place in an area where there is currently no built development. This does not, however, mean that the starting point for determination of an application is a presumption it should be refused.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 101156
Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Rowington Landowner Consortium
Asiant : Knight Frank LLP
The landowner consortium generally supports Draft Policy Direction 49, whereby it is clear that the new settlement C1 has potential to provide a landscape-led approach, preserving natural features, integrating substantial green spaces, and promoting biodiversity.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 101663
Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Ms Zoe Leventhal
Support. This should be done in conjunction with Warwickshire Wildlife Trust and town and parish councils. Careful drafting will need to ensure there is no overlap with other policies and so as to minimise the burden on developers.
No
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 101766
Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mr Vincent Rollason
This development is not good for the area
Other
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 101881
Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council
Reserve judgement
Unless major developments are required to have a full Landscape Visual Impact Assessment this is surely toothless
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 101895
Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mrs AMANDA VENABLES
Can mechanisms to ensure landscaping is actually carried out be improved?
No
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 102051
Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Barwood Land
Asiant : Savills (UK) Ltd
We recognise and support the need for development proposals to respect and respond to local landscape character, however, the draft policy approach in DPD48 sets an unachievable bar and would preclude most developments.
The second sentence of the policy states that “where a proposal would result in landscape harm, the general principle is that is should be refused unless there would be an over-riding benefit of the development for instance to meet an evidenced local housing need”
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 102058
Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Miss Isabel Collins
it should be protected from development where you can't mitigate the effect of development
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 102078
Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mr Simon Walkden
Agreed
Other
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 102223
Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Hallam Land
Asiant : LRM Planning
t is an inescapable fact that to meet the development needs of the plan area there will be a change to the character and appearance of those locations where new development is situated.
One of the factors in determining where development should be located is the landscape value of a site and the visual effects of new development. It will be important that the extent of change is minimised, but it cannot be avoided.
No
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 102420
Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mr Andrew Crump
I am concerned to note that harm to the landscape can be over-ridden by the established need for local housing. This goes against the three objectives underpinning sustainable development- environmental, social and economic. If there is a negative impact on the environmental objective, then this points to the development being unsustainable, otherwise housing could trump everything else and be built anywhere.
Other
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 102476
Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land
Asiant : Turley
Taylor Wimpey welcome recognition of the overriding considerations, for instance local housing need, where proposed development would result in some landscape harm.
This should be expanded to include instances where the principle of development is established through the NPPF and also where the benefit of providing development would outweigh the harm.
No
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 102486
Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025
Ymatebydd: BDW Trading Limited
Asiant : Knight Frank LLP
Draft Policy Direction 48 is disproportionate and lacks clarity, particularly in its approach to requiring Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments (LVIAs), which could place excessive burdens on small developments. The policy also places undue weight on landscape harm, potentially leading to a presumption against development on greenfield sites, despite the housing need. A more balanced approach is required to ensure landscape considerations do not override other key planning factors such as housing delivery and economic benefits and sustainable development.
No
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 102534
Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mrs Karen Rollason
Too vague.
By definition, development within landscape areas such within Arden, and particularly Ancient Arden, will have a disastrous impact, especially on the scale proposed for B1. Ancient field patterns, hedgerows, field ponds, winding sunken lanes gone forever. And it simply cannot be argued that the oak trees would be retained. They sit within a landscape which would be utterly ruined and possibly would not survive the soil impaction development would bring.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 102628
Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Ms Sue Cole
I support the policy to protect key views and vistas.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 102702
Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Hatton Parish Council
Development of site B1 Land at Hatton would not be consistent with this policy.
A Housing needs Survey carried out in 2020 by WRRS found a need for 3 dwellings in Hatton Parish since when 150 have been built.
No
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 104002
Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Ms Camille Newton
If a proposal will result in landscape harm it should be refused. The wording of 'unless there would be an over-riding benefit etc ' should be removed. It doesnt not seem reasonable that a development will be able to positively contribute towards enhancement of the character of the landscape, more likely it will at best minimise its impact. The wording 'will explore' and 'seek to avoid' are vague. There should be a clear commitment to having full Landscape Visual Impact Assessments for major developments, obtaining long term management and maintenance of landscape proposals and avoiding hard developed edges.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 104017
Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mr Amarjit Gill
The landscape should be protected from development where it may be adversely affected by new building
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 104249
Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Ms Margaret Halligan
Agree
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 104366
Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Mr Stephen Norrie
The policy is not strong enough to rule out renewable developments, and is obviously not intended to do so, so no problem with this. Beautiful landscapes are nice.
No
Preferred Options 2025
ID sylw: 104909
Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Dr Susan Hood
Development should not be allowed in the area if it results in landscape harm. 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: 104936
Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025
Ymatebydd: Miss Ann Colley
agree