Q-S10: Please add any comments you wish to make about the development distribution strategy for South Warwickshire

No encroachment on green belt land should be permitted.

[Re growth of existing settlements] Pretty obvious this has to be done. However asking some of the villages listed to take upward to 900 houses needs to carefully considered so that villages don't get taken over by the larger towns.

Mistakes have been made and Telford comes to mind where a vast housing conurbation was created with no connectivity and little infrastructure. It would be preferable to look at existing settlements and look at a more integrated approach with greater consultation with local residents. To have a vast development where residents from the outskirts of Birmingham are planted does not represent a sensitive approach to community and adaptability. It would take greater more expensive approaches unless it is done on the cheap and poorly.

Wood End should be excluded as no consideration is made on the current boundary impacts to Solihull where significant development has been undertaken already impacting the area. The local services including train line is limited being only a halt stop with limited space to improve this. Wood End is considered countryside by many - a new town would change this. Residents have not be truly consulted on this. Development would be in green belt destroying the break between Birmingham/Solihull and Warwickshire.

Growth of existing settlements make sense - this however needs to be sensitive to not change character and size of small villages significantly. This needs to take into account infrastructure requirements but also considering factors such as flood risk (including surface water flooding) which is a significant issues in certain areas & villages, including Wootton Waven. Number of new houses should not completely change to current character of existing villages and areas need to be carefully chosen.

The historic settlements especially those with conservation areas should be spared from further growth, which would devalue their specific qualities and prevent them becoming urbanized, also to prevent them merging into existing settlements. For examples the village of Barford.

We consider that settlements should be ranked into category's depending on SA scoring with the best scoring settlements taking more than those scoring less.

It makes most sense to grow the settlements which already have the best and most established facilities available to them such as schools, doctors surgeries and railway stations all within sensible walking distance. For example, Hampton Magna has Warwick Parkway station, a medical centre, a community centre and a parade of small shops, whereas Hatton Park has only a single small village shop and a village hall within walking distance. In this example, it would make most sense to develop Hampton Magna.

I do think that growth of some of our existing settlements could successfully be part of the overall strategy. However the plan of the town or village needs to be carefully looked at - filling in - re using already developed land. I think the plan for growth of a village or town should not use the greenbelt land; growth of existing settlements should only be considered where it does not require development in the green belt.

Development of existing settlements should only be considered in relation to non-green belt land.

[RE Q-S4.1 growth of existing settlements] key word is some here housing needs to be properly established green belt afforded protection, very valulable

Since large swathes of the existing towns (and many of the recent housing developments) fail to meet the 20 minute target it is hard to see why any new development s would fare any better. Unless the council has the will, the power and resources to finance these aspirations they amount to little more than than aspirations.

Wood End does not truly have rail infrastructure. It is not safe to walk to the station due to the lack of pavement, there is also no street lighting. Finally there's also no car park at the station so all travel to the station would have to be as a passenger in a vehicle and be dropped off, therefore it's completely unsuitable for a large development, that's in addition to the loss of neighbouring farmland and woodland completely destroying the rural nature of the area

Outer Suberb along Rouncil lane area. Strongly object to building houses on land around Kenilworth, taking away one of the aspects that make Kenilworth such a nice place to live. Thousands of houses already planned on existing school sites, from which the town and surrounding roads will struggle to cope.

Transport is an important issue and suburban sprawl needs to be avoided - new settlements take up a lot of land and they are not making this any more.

Why not consider trams for new settlements?

With regard to new settlements more generally, we have responded NO to Q-S5.2 because we think the process for selecting these sites has been flawed - please see the concerns we raise elsewhere in our response, in particular our answer to Q-V3.2.

I would like it recorded that I am against large scale development for Henley-in-Arden. It is in a Green Belt area because it is in a strategically important location, south of Birmingham and protecting the area from development sprawl south from Shirley, Monkspath and Hockley Heath. This green corridor should be protected. Henley can sustain small development growth but not large scale.

I am a resident of Kenilworth, living on the edges of town (John O'Gaunt Road) and next to one of the proposed sites for housing development. I am strongly against further extending the housing of Kenilworth into more Greenfield sites. We have already lost complete swathes of countryside to HS2 and new housing developments. I do not see how more destruction of more green spaces will support our need to address the climate crisis and tend to the fragile ecosystem that we need to preserve and conserve for future generations. Neighbours we have spoken to along John O'Gaunt Road (CV8 1DZ), Rounds Hill and Rouncil Lane and the community around Clinton Primary School are in widespread opposition to the idea of destroying our nearby green areas. We regularly use the proposed new development site to walk in nature and enhance our own wellbeing and that of our families. Our connectedness to nature is even more important during these fragile times and bringing up children that understand and respect the nature that surrounds them is key. The wildlife will suffer as a result of more development. We regularly see a wide variety of wildlife and birds that live in the hedgerows. The addition of concrete to a wide area that currently has the benefit of deep roots and trees will affect drainage and our precious ecosystem which depends of green spaces to sustain life. There is already a huge amount of development in Kenilworth. The town already struggles with congestion and adding more homes will only add to the volume of traffic and people using the same resources. The infrastructure is already beyond capacity and we are yet to understand the impact of the hundreds of new homes currently in development. The pace of development around Kenilworth seems to be badly thought through. I believe brownfield sites need to be the focus for any new developments. NOT destroying beautiful landscapes where nature thrives and flourishes and where current and future generations of people can appreciate the beauty of our natural environment. Cherishing our green spaces is the only way we can address our climate emergency and stand any hope of attaining the carbon net zero targets. I am heartbroken to think we will lose this precious green belt on our doorstop. I strongly oppose this proposal, I sincerely hope the views I have expressed here will be taken seriously.

Outer Suberb along Rouncil lane area. Strongly object to building houses on land around Kenilworth, taking away one of the aspects that make Kenilworth such a nice place to live. Thousands of houses already planned on existing school sites, from which the town and surrounding roads will struggle to cope.

THERE IS NO OPTIOn TO COMMENT ON ISSUE S6: I am against ANY reduction in the green belt.

I am writing to you in utter astonishment at the proposed developments for Henley in Arden. 500 to 2000 houses?!?!?!? The whole appeal of Henley is that it is a quaint old market town steeped in history with amenities to support the local residents and visitors. Why on earth are you even considering ruining such a lovely place by trying to build a new Dickens Heath or change it to a modern day Monkspath. It is disgraceful that developers are allowed by yourselves to carve up the beautiful countryside and ruin locals immediate surroundings purely for greed without any consultation or consideration. What ever happened to 'green belt' land? Shouldn't you be focusing on brownfields sites to redevelop rather than decimate more beautiful countryside like the scandalous HS2 farce we are all paying a fortune for. It amazes me how when I extended my house in Henley the local district planning team wouldn't let me extend an extra 4 feet in my own back garden as it was intrusive and not in keeping with the surroundings and over the percentage addition rule but you're considering letting a developer build a whole new estate on a golf course and a Christmas tree plantation. What infrastructure plans have been discussed? What wildlife preservation issues have been considered? Flooding potential now all these trees are being replaced with concrete? And not to mention the traffic chaos the developing would cause and then potentially 1000's of extra vehicles daily trying to get up and down our already very busy High St. If you lived in Henley you would be absolutely outraged at the thought of this even being considered. If I wanted to live in a densely populated area I would have bought myself an apartment on Broad St in Birmingham but I didn't I wanted to live in a historic small country town with beautiful architecture unspoilt by modern greed. Just look at Henley for what it is and appreciate it. Don't ruin such a beautiful place to live in to line the pockets of an ever increasing society of entitlement.

QS4.1 Growth of existing settlements - Growth of existing settlements should only be considered where it does not require development in the greenbelt. Previous growth of existing settlements in non-greenbelt locations should not prevent further development and infrastructure should be invested to support further non-greenbelt development. Where growth of existing settlements cannot be assured without using greenbelt land, alternative solutions should be considered that do not involve development in greenbelt land. Q-S5.2 - New Settlements: I feel that it is wholly unacceptable to consider the development of a new settlement within greenbelt land. There are not exceptional circumstances to doing so. It is unacceptable that despite the NPPF principles, multiple new settlement locations are illustratively suggested in the current consultation document. If a new settlement is to be considered, this should only be in non-greenbelt land. There are ample non-greenbelt options for new settlements. A new settlement in non-greenbelt land should be prioritised over any other development options in greenbelt land. New infrastructure can be developed to support such a non-greenbelt site. Q-S7.2 For the remaining spatial need growth options, I feel it is important that the priority is to avoid developing greenbelt land. The need for greenbelt development in each spatial option should be considered before selecting a specific spatial growth option. This is needed to fulfil NPPF "exceptional circumstances" principle. It is not acceptable to select a spatial option without first considering the need to develop greenbelt to deliver that option. Instead, it should be assessed whether another spatial growth option could be selected that requires less (or no) greenbelt development, and that option growth with the least greenbelt development should should be selected, even if more infrastructure work is needed. Retrospectively claiming exceptional circumstances are needed because there is no other way to meet a selected spatial growth option is not acceptable. The climate emergency should not be used as a justification to develop greenbelt land. Q-S8.1 Settlements falling outside the chosen growth strategy: I do not feel threshold approach to small scale growth developments is appropriate in greenbelt areas. We do not feel the plan should allow for more small-scale growth developments to come forward in greenbelt areas. Q-S10 - Any other comments: I am specifically opposed to development of land in the greenbelt areas in/around Weston under Wetherley and other similar small greenbelt villages due to the impact on the rural character of the area of the North Leamington Greenbelt. The Climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land. This is a weak and bizarre argument. There are other ways of mitigating against the climate emergency without developing on greenbelt land, which itself is truly harmful. There is no option to comment on issure S6 within the plan (A review of the greenbelt boundaries). I do not feel it is necessary or appropriate to redefine greenbelt boundaries. This issue should not have been included within the consultation without the option to comment. The number of respondents (561 responses) to the first consultation was exceptionally small indeed and can in no way be considered representative of the population area. It is possible given these very small numbers they were from developers or others who would directly benefit from such development (there were almost as many sites submitted as responses received!). This tiny number of respondents is so small it would not be used as a basis for decision making and should not be used to justify development or review of the greenbelt.

Greenbelt - The proposals appear to assume that the greenbelt north of Stratford upon Avon will no longer exist, or will be severely compromised. Greenbelts were set up in order for residents of cities, such as Birmingham, to have access to green space and countryside within a reasonable distance. By continually eroding the greenbelts this would have a detrimental effect on the residents of the West Midland conurbation, we therefore object to this proposal. Bearley Railway Station - The documents show Bearley Station as an important station being both on the Stratford to Birmingham line and the Stratford to Warwick/Leamington line. This is incorrect as Bearley Station is only on the line to Warwick/Leamington. The station runs a very limited service which does not enable travellers to commute easily to work. There are no trains to Warwick before 9.00 am and no return trains after 6.15 pm. The result of this is that Bearley Station is one of the least used stations in the country. Consequently there are very few Bearley residents who use this service. Should houses be built in Bearley it is most unlikely that the new residents would consider the railway as their primary means of transport, as they would have to have cars to access all the facilities that Bearley does not possess, such a shop, school, GP surgery etc. Railway Corridors - The principle of locating new housing developments only in existing settlements with railway stations, we believe is a flawed policy. We understand the aspiration of the Councils to encourage people to use rail travel, but the reality is that with the limited and expensive services on the rail network people will continue to use their cars. The proposals show the location of up to 500 houses in the few villages with railway stations. This will drastically effect the character of these villages. If however a policy of dispersal were to be adopted there are many more villages which could each satisfactorily absorb a limited number of houses, including Bearley.

Dispersed very small housing allocation in existing settlements, villages and small towns. Larger developments on new sites avoiding the destruction of existing communities.

Too many cats too many people trying to take over too many green spaces

Noticeable omission of questions for issue S6 on Green Belt builds. You should have included a question. There is no reason to build on Green Belt land, therefore this should not be considered as a viable option, particularly near areas of historical significance. With respect to S7, further research needs to be conducted into whether such estimations are actually viable.

There was no ability to comment on Issue 6 which is - the green belt land in the south of the country is not well connected and should be left alone.

Greenbelt should be retained, certainly as a means to limit development. Small revisions of boundaries might be suitable but only for very small developments of 30 houses or less. Generally, development on greenbelt land should be avoided as far as possible, and should be the very last land to be used. Open countryside should be protected at all times.

In respect of Wootten Wawen and the surrounding area, development is welcomed in order to bring into the village younger people due to the majority of the current population being more of the older generation. Young families with children will support the viability of Wotton Wawen primary school. Furthermore, having a greater population will also sustain the local businesses in the area. Notwithstanding the above comments, the amount of homes must be limited to a maximum of 50. There must be a careful balance as introducing more homes will also put a strain on the current infrastructure, which includes, but not limited to the following:- - The roads through Wootton Wawen have junctions which have very limited visibility on the A3400, i.e., Pettiford Lane, Pennyford Lane, turning into Wootton Hall. Despite the speed limit being 30 miles per hour, cars drive in excess of this limit and there have been a number of accidents. - The state of the roads in Wootton Wawen are not in good repair. More homes will only result in ‘rat-runs’ being created and will damage those minor roads. - Wootton Wawen has a railway station however, there is no car park which services the station. Whilst it may be anticipated that people living in the village who wish to commute will walk to the station, in practice that will not be the case. Therefore, there will be a build-up of traffic around the station and the surrounding roads causing a disruption to those living near to the station. Furthermore, the roads leading up to the station are narrow roads with junctions which have limited visibility. - There will inevitability be a build up of traffic which will increase the road traffic noise at the busiest of times. - There is no GP surgery in Wootton Wawen, the nearest surgery is in Henley-in-Arden which will increase traffic flow (see above). - Wootton Wawen has flood planes, where more houses will place a strain on the drainage infrastructure This is evident with the increase of homes on Pennyford Lane where at the wettest part of the year, the lane gets flooded. In addition to the above comments, the following should also be taken into account: - Wootton Wawen has a great deal of history. Having a large development will have an effect on the setting of the great deal of listed buildings within the village. - The Green Belt status of Wootton Wawen. A larger development will only decrease the wildlife areas in the village.