Yes

Representation ID: 86049

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Sandy McCaskie

N/A

No

Representation ID: 86084

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Clive Corrie

Development on the scale and of the type proposed is inherently unsustainable. It places undue strain on existing facilities and will result in a loss of Green Belt land.

Yes

Representation ID: 86154

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Andy Smith

I broadly favour larger settlements justifying the infrastructure investement to sustain them, and making it easier to consider linking to existing and where possible reinstated rail connections. Smaller established rural communities should generally restrict growth to that identified by housing needs surveys that support local coherence.

Other

Representation ID: 86205

Received: 15/01/2025

Respondent: Professor Paul Bywaters

The key issues for me are
1. ensuring that the housing provided prioritises the need for a greatly increased stock of affordable housing;
2. ensuring that the housing provided meets high standards for sustainability and environmental considerations
3. ensuring that existing amenities, including allotments, and accessible green spaces are not encroached upon,
4. ensuring that the necessary infrastructure, such as shops, schools and health centres, are built into the plan.

No

Representation ID: 86217

Received: 15/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Linda Dane

Not without knowing a lot more than is shown

No

Representation ID: 86235

Received: 17/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Brightburn

Existing Town Centres need to be included in the analysis of Growth Options in order to really understand if the development is 'sustainable' for the whole town and surrounding area.

No

Representation ID: 86246

Received: 17/01/2025

Respondent: Michelle McHugh

Efforts should be placed on regenerating town centres and developing affordable housing within town centres rather than new developments or strategic growth areas for existing towns - which are already overly populated

No

Representation ID: 86249

Received: 17/01/2025

Respondent: Michelle McHugh

I don't support the approach of new settlements and strategic growth areas. Housing need should be met by regenerating town centres and making current housing market affordable.....building more housing is not the answer.

No

Representation ID: 86260

Received: 18/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Elliot

It just isn’t substainable

Other

Representation ID: 86272

Received: 18/01/2025

Respondent: Ms Ruth Buckley

It is hard to understand exactly what Draft Policy Direction 1 is. The draft Local Plan is comprehensive but so verbose that it is extremely difficult understand the exact on the ground proposals. We favour:
affordable housing for purchase and rent, for single people, single parents with children, those with accessibility needs etc. We do not wish to see yet more detached and semi-detached houses. We call upon those who make decisions to ensure absolutely that whatever housing is agreed is IN NO WAY decided or influenced by the profit that developers and others in the process would make.

No

Representation ID: 86388

Received: 23/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Pagan

I believe the farmland to the north of Old Milverton should be maintained for all to enjoy. It's vital for wildlife and is already surrounded by the A46 and North Leamington. It's a small pocket of land which should be maintained. The infrastructure for all the proposed houses is not there and the Kenilworth Road is already hugely busy.
Leamington and Warwick are becoming a homogenous urban sprawl and all villages are being destroyed by HS2 and housebuilding for the masses. The charm of the area is fast disappearing

No

Representation ID: 86464

Received: 25/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Janine Lee

I am concerned with the plan to build in Wilmcote. Having been a Parish Councillor I know there is only a small need for next generation and affordable homes. 6700 homes is a desire for overspill from Birmingham and Coventry to move into a rural area. There are not enough jobs to sustain this, Warwick Hospital will not cope, road and rail access is inadequate for current usage, building on green belt is proposed, biodiversity will be destroyed for ever, flooding is a concern with so much land being concreted over. Pollution from traffic will negate net zero targets.

Yes

Representation ID: 86514

Received: 27/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Terry Simmonds

We need housing, has to go somewhere, you have no choice

No

Representation ID: 86526

Received: 27/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Alistair Watkins

Local infrastructure (roads, rail, police, medical, fire, agriculture)of south Warwickshire cannot cope with current demand let alone an increase. Equally, the environmental impact of building on green field sites appears to be not of importance. Human habitation increases is highly detrimental.

Other

Representation ID: 86571

Received: 28/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Bridgewater

Broadly supportive, but not in all areas.

Other

Representation ID: 86818

Received: 30/01/2025

Respondent: Mr GERALD KELLY

The government should look at ways to limit the population of the country which would reduce the perceived need for so much housing. Reduce illegal immigration and focus any legal immigration. If the country continues to fill like it is now in generations to come there will be no open spaces and we wont be able to travel anywhere due to traffic jams.

No

Representation ID: 86855

Received: 30/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jane Porter

I have previous laid out my comments on this plan and do not support it in any way. Destruction of natural habitat, increasing pollution, increase in concrete and tarmac development in this small village with no infrastructure.

No

Representation ID: 86997

Received: 02/02/2025

Respondent: S Gardner

You haven’t taken changes in the retail landscape into consideration and reclaiming grey spaces in town centres, ie, kenilworth or Leamington, for housing rather than retail. Some of the high density areas of development, like sg01 and sg02 contractict many of the tragic objectives you have suggested.

Yes

Representation ID: 87202

Received: 06/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoffrey Morris

In preference to development adjacent to urban sites, I consider that pursuing a strategy of new settlement development would provide a more sustainable outcome through:
– development of housing proximate to areas of employment.
– growth of housing development adjacent to transport hubs.
– allowing development of services such as schooling, medical care, retail to grow. alongside evolving needs of residents in new settlement areas.
– obviating the additional pressure of services if development were to focus within existing urban areas (Leamington Spa, Warwick, Stratford upon Avon).
– Protecting the historic nature of Leamington Spa, Warwick and Stratford upon Avon.

Yes

Representation ID: 87255

Received: 07/02/2025

Respondent: Stockton Parish Council

Na

Yes

Representation ID: 87363

Received: 08/02/2025

Respondent: Cllr Andrew Day

100%

Other

Representation ID: 87487

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Hinett

My view is that building so many houses etc is firmly at odds with 'responding to the climate emergency'.

There must be a better way: one that supports growth aspirations and obligations, but is kinder to our planet.

Lets focus on development which avoids consuming more and more of our "green and pleasant" land.

Yes

Representation ID: 87516

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: mrs susan morris

I agree

No

Representation ID: 87534

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: Michaelina Jakala

I do not support the approach - too much development with too little infrastructure.

No

Representation ID: 87652

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kate Davies

The amount of development being proposed will fundamentally change the character of stratford which is a historic town. Building this many houses will put further pressure on the roads, infrastructure and environmental impact , schools and gp facilities where getting appointments is already difficult.
I do not believe this is sustainable development or considering the needs of those in Stratford now. Just seeing the impact of any road blockage issue highlights the impact of additional traffic.

No

Representation ID: 87694

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Suzie Foxton

I don’t agree

Yes

Representation ID: 87699

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mr justin kerridge

good public transport is essential in new developments and avoiding making congestion on roads worse

No

Representation ID: 87799

Received: 11/02/2025

Respondent: Helen Stone-Johnston

I absolutely disagree with use of or downgrading green belt. This makes a unique contribution to warwickshire (wildlife, protected species - bat flight paths, newts, access to free walks for physical and mental health, in deprived parts of Warks, birds of prey, old oak trees, deer, hedgerows). And the development of yet more big housing estates - in areas already heavily populated with little/no infrastructure particularly in terms of roads/retail/community services. The ones we have look the same, and sprawl - we need to make sure this doesnt happen in Warks.

No

Representation ID: 87818

Received: 11/02/2025

Respondent: Robin Hanick

SG19 is already being promoted by Gatesby Estates with surveys being carried out with provision for new access adjacent to allotments. I feel that the Council are not being open and know more than the public. I feel that a decision has already been decided. Current infrastructure is not adequate for increased traffic. Not viable to improve highways due to existing constraints( river,bridge, footways etc) Safety concerns along Tiddington Road and through village due. Long queues and delays into Stratford at junction with Banbury Road, Bridgfoot. Safety concerns and HGV's using Clopton bridge . No facilities for cyclists.

No

Representation ID: 87874

Received: 12/02/2025

Respondent: Miss katie brown

Harm to Wildlife and Ecosystems
Rural areas are home to diverse wildlife, and new housing developments can destroy natural habitats. This can lead to a decline in local biodiversity, disrupt ecosystems, and endanger species that rely on these areas for survival.