No

Representation ID: 86039

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Dr Jean-Pierre Laake

No to building on SG18 and greenbelt land:
1. Previous planning applications in SG18 have not been supported by councillors.
2. High land of SG18 overlooks Bishopton, Shottery Conservation Area and the Racecourse and will irreparably damage natural surrouding views
3. SG18 is valued as green leisure space by existing residents
4. SG18 is too many miles from town centre to promote active transport
5. SG18 is segregated from town by a46 and the western relief road
6. There are better brownfield sites closer to the town centre including disused poor quality architectural retail space and SG19

Yes

Representation ID: 86063

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Sandy McCaskie

N/A

Other

Representation ID: 86132

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Clive Corrie

Brownfield should be used to facilitate house building. the Green Belt need to be preserved with the few exceptions allowed in the existing planning framework.

No

Representation ID: 86250

Received: 17/01/2025

Respondent: Michelle McHugh

I don't agree with the approach

No

Representation ID: 86252

Received: 17/01/2025

Respondent: Michelle McHugh

Town centres should be regenerated, not new developments / or growth of existing developments

No

Representation ID: 86405

Received: 23/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sheila Chennells

Planning needs carefull planning and proposals should not be bulldozed through I could keep talking about all of the building that has happened in your previous plans until 2025/30 this next trance needs careful consideration as what is being planned will have a detrimental affect on the local residents and the environment. There is not space for the infrastructure to be implemented and our roads will become dangerous and congested and Rouncil Lane and surrounding roads will cause traffic jams etc. please just reconsider this development

Other

Representation ID: 86621

Received: 28/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Trevor Bradnam

Potential brownfield development sites should not be at the expense of the local environment

No

Representation ID: 86780

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Mr russell gillott

The 'need' for more development is a direct consequence of mass immigration. This is in turn ruining public services. The idea that 'growth' is essential, and dependent on concreting over the countryside is utter fallacy. It's old, out dated thinking and in direct conflict with any sense of understanding of the climate change emergency we are living in. Short termist and selfish. True 'sustainable' development would be entirely different to what the govt and thus county are proposing.

No

Representation ID: 86904

Received: 31/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Arthur Hogan-Fleming

-

No

Representation ID: 87010

Received: 02/02/2025

Respondent: S Gardner

I am not convinced that enough consideration is being given to local communities and how new developments will integrate effectively in, it also doesn’t effectly answer the pressures on infrastructure in higher designated areas of build, it also doesn’t look at local green and renewable energy production requirements,

No

Representation ID: 87068

Received: 03/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Dawn Thomas

I think INFASTRUCTURE and QUIET GREEN AREAS should be at the top of the list when building, growing and expanding are proposed. FUTURE generations will depend on our approach NOW.

No

Representation ID: 87112

Received: 03/02/2025

Respondent: S Gardner

As a resident in Warwickshire I am greatly concerned as to how many spaces are potentially going to allocated to growth areas, and, how I the Kenilworth area, HS2 is going to used as an excuse to fuel expansion and close the gap between Coventry and Kenilworth. There is also not enough application of policies later in this proposal to the growth areas to challenge their size, location and also green credentials.

Yes

Representation ID: 87228

Received: 06/02/2025

Respondent: Cllr Oliver Jacques

A Park and Ride scheme to serve both Warwick and Leamington would alleviate traffic congestion in both towns and allow for the town centres to become less car-dependent and more welcoming and safe areas to visit, work and shop. A site in between Warwick and Leamington to the south near the M40 would be ideal.

Yes

Representation ID: 87382

Received: 08/02/2025

Respondent: Cllr Andrew Day

None

Yes

Representation ID: 87717

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mr justin kerridge

yes

Other

Representation ID: 88051

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Quantrill

Brownfield land for development is fine. Green belt land should not be considered though. If we are taliking about development for commercial use then there is limited demand for offices in South Warwickshire appart from on existing Business Parks.

Other

Representation ID: 88052

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sharon Quantrill

I agree with brownfield sites being used for development I do not agree with greenbelt being used when there are other alternatives. I also question the need for more office/industrial developments when there are plenty of voids on existing business/industrial parks within the area for commercial property.

Yes

Representation ID: 88297

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mr John Tristram

Developing brownfield sites makes perfect sense, but the all construction must be to a high standard and designed to be 'in keeping' with the local environs

No

Representation ID: 88398

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Annette Pharo

According to the study shown, there is no need for further industrial provision within the Stratford area so why would destroying greenfield sites next to the historically important village of Wilmcote be acceptable?

Yes

Representation ID: 88573

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Mr James Nicholls

Whilst I am broudly supportive of new house building in the area, with regards to this proposed site on the edge of Barford, I believe that the infrastructure would need significant upgrading to support any new homes. Particular issues are water, roads, broadband and electricity. Severn Trent have needed to make repeated repairs and investigate contamination in water due to aging pipes. Broadband is slow (~30Mbps) and contested, roadways are narrow country roads, already too busy, and electricity infrastructure is already prone to blackouts and unable to adequately support feeding into the grid with solar.

Other

Representation ID: 88747

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Jerry Corless

All brownfield sites regardless of size need to be considered and there are several sites in south warwickshire that could be used for this purpose.

Yes

Representation ID: 88923

Received: 18/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Haidee Smith

No extra roads shown on the map so existing country roads would be blocked as well as the Birmingham road which is already very busy. Stratford and the surrounding villages do not have the schools, medical amenities or transport infrastructure to support extra traffic it struggles already- often gridlocked due to the over zealous use of traffic lights. The area is often subject to flooding so with the run off will end up in the new houses! Our countryside haven and house prices will be destroyed as the character houses will be swallowed by boring rows of boxes.

Yes

Representation ID: 89015

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

Vitally important that all new development is built to highest specification and will not need retrofitting in the future

Yes

Representation ID: 89390

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Amanda Knight

No additional comments

Yes

Representation ID: 89751

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Compton Verney

Compton Verney is broadly supportive of the South Warwickshire plan.

No

Representation ID: 89857

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mr SIMON BEACHAM

Site BW: at all costs don't spoil our beautiful rural countryside at the expense of meeting targets, think of the legacy left for future generations!

No

Representation ID: 90365

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Sankey

This is a lovely area and does not need ruining!!!

Other

Representation ID: 90445

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Dr Louise Stewart

The chapter already includes reference to potential development sites (Abbey Fields) that have been identified as economically unattractive. The BW strategic growth proposal is another such area that will turn out to be completely unaffordable for development. Similarly it is widely evidenced that the Long Marston development has been unable to proceed due to withdrawal of plans and funding for the relief road intended to service it.

No

Representation ID: 90481

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Jayne Jones

Although principles are laudable, application is not consistent. SG17 is not sustainable, due to mainly to flood risk.

Other

Representation ID: 90594

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Stephen Davies

I find the complexity of the information overwhelming and cannot comment on the 'layered' fields provided. I am unable to understand the map, which prevents me from knowing if there are plans to expand Bellway Homes' existing planning permission to the north of Rugby Road, Cubbington. If there are intentions to develop further westward, I wish to object due to concerns about unnecessary development on Green Belt land and the additional pressure on already stretched services and amenities. If no expansion is planned, I have no objections.