No

Representation ID: 87875

Received: 12/02/2025

Respondent: Miss catherine jones

Strain on Infrastructure and Services
Many rural areas lack the necessary infrastructure, such as roads, schools, and medical facilities, to support an influx of new residents. This can lead to overcrowding of essential services and place a financial burden on local councils to provide upgrades.

No

Representation ID: 87876

Received: 12/02/2025

Respondent: Mr harnake sanga

Increased Traffic and Pollution
New housing developments bring more vehicles, leading to higher traffic levels on rural roads that may not be designed to handle heavy usage. This contributes to noise and air pollution, diminishing the peaceful environment of the countryside.

No

Representation ID: 87889

Received: 12/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs wendy` evans

Risk of Flooding and Environmental Damage
Developing land for housing can interfere with natural drainage systems, increasing the risk of flooding in surrounding areas. Paving over green spaces also reduces the land’s ability to absorb rainwater, leading to further environmental issues. The area already suffers with flooding as you know

No

Representation ID: 87890

Received: 12/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Hession

SoA already has largest amount of new builds per capita in country 284 per 10k of population.
Loss of rural feel to historic surrounding villages
Selected areas prone to flooding.
Increase of traffic through villages containing historic and listed buildings within conservation zones.
Area appears to be selected because of locality to small railway stations, not local impact concerns
Increase of housing turning SoA into a satellite town, new suburb of Birmingham/Coventry
The plan looks to be cramming more houses into a convenient space rather than creating a new, independent village.

No

Representation ID: 87962

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Gillian Glover

I am against taking agricultural land especially SG09 and SG10. No infrastructure - roads schools, health units.

Other

Representation ID: 87973

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Quantrill

I do not agree that Stratford upon Avon needs more housing as it has already seen significant development which is spoiling the charactor of the area. The general infrastucture is nowhere near adequate. Stratford has no facilities for youngsters. Green belt should not be considered for development. Brownfield sites should be prioritised although I feel that Warwickshire has already undertaken its fair share of development. The New Towns suggested will have a considerable detrimental impact. Smaller schemes within/on the edge of urban areas or the extension of housing estates already built should be prioritised but on a smaller scale.

No

Representation ID: 88020

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Quantrill

How can substantial development be sustainable?! Even if the houses themselves are built in a sustainable way which I would suggest is unlikley the lack of infrastructure for the non urban areas makes such schemes unsustainable.

No

Representation ID: 88021

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sharon Quantrill

Development has taken place on a large scale in Stratford. The criteria for sustainable development is not being met ie flood defences are not being incorporated into houses where flooding is an issue. The infrastructure in and around the Stratford upon Avon area is in need of rectifying as the public services are not frequent enough and the road system is at capacity. We do not have enough schools, doctor surgeries or hospitals to cope with the amount of houses that have already been built. Long Marston is a prime example 4,000 houses and no school.

Yes

Representation ID: 88148

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anne Parry

No objection.

Yes

Representation ID: 88264

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ida Marjorie Brown

Agree - in terms of direction it appears balanced and appropriate. Not quite sure I agree with all the strategic sites.

No

Representation ID: 88276

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Mr SIMON BEACHAM

Where I agree with the policy in principal, I can't agree on the selected locations, my interest being in the Bearley/Wilmcote location for housing. I think a more thorough search is needed for brownfield sites as a priority. I can see why the BW site is favourable for transport links, ie trains and roads but why not think outside the box and revisit the proposal to open the line between Stratford and Long Marston and use sites in this area? I fear that by improving infrastructure and our proximity to the M40 will encourage logistic hubs ie Redditch et al.

Yes

Representation ID: 88340

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Jon Knight

It seems like a reasonable balance between the demand for housing/employment in the area and the need make such development sustainable and not ruin AONB.

No

Representation ID: 88356

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Joy Smith

These hateful proposals are causing so much distress.

No

Representation ID: 88432

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mr A Patrick

Low density edge of town development is the absolute worst for generating motor traffic and congestion. The growth of car use is not sustainable. Cycle routes must link all the way into/through town or they'll not attract much use. Bus provision must be radically re-thought. No sign of these...
It would be much better to create a new town so that "active travel" options and car restraint can be built in from the start. Or higher density development within existing settlements or focused on a viable non-car corridor.

No

Representation ID: 88508

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Julie Hudson

I understand the broad arguments, but I think they are not broad enough. You need to bring in a more rounded approach to the question of land use. Without this, you cannot assert that “sustainable development” is at the core. A government land use consultation is under way and could provide some of that rounding. A population thrives on its stomach, to coin a phrase. Homes and jobs mean much less (and people in them produce less for the economy) without decent food, access to a healthy and secure living space (environment!), supported by health services and health-giving green spaces

Yes

Representation ID: 88534

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sidney Syson

Yes I agree but the problem will be providing the necessary infrastructure so that it is in place when the developemnt is even only partly occipied.

Other

Representation ID: 88540

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kathryn Lawry Kennedy

I do not agree with the government’s mandate to require 2188 houses every year to be built in south Warwickshire. This will not happen because developers will not be able to maintain high profit margins if they sell at that rate, but will mean these developers cherry pick the most profitable sites, often without suitable infrastructure. However, we accept that this local plan must follow the government’s mandate.
The most effective way to reduce the number of green fields to be allocated in this local plan is to shorten the plan period so that it would end in 2042.

Other

Representation ID: 88700

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Jerry Corless

N/A

No

Representation ID: 88791

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Erin Williams

There is a high level of green field sites included. The most effective way to reduce the number of green fields to be allocated in this local plan is to shorten the plan period so that it would end in 2042. This would mean that only about half as much new green belt or other green field land would be scheduled for concreting over. Making only about half the new land available for development would put the Council in a much stronger negotiating position with developers and will make it easier to enforce timely infrastructure, tough Carbon-reduction measures, etc.

Other

Representation ID: 88991

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

It is essential that every development however small is evaluated for the collective burden it places on infrastructure. Previously small developments have not been considered significant in highway capacity term or the provision of education, health and sports facilities. That has lead to significant overloading and a significant reduction in the quality of life for existing residents. Any new development must contribute to an improvement in the quality of life.

No

Representation ID: 89012

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Tanworth Residents Association

It needs the addition of a clear statement that the Green Belt north of Henley will be protected at all costs. New settlements or expanded existing settlements will only be considered when all available sites elsewhere have been exhausted.
Given the proximity of Redditch, Bromsgrove, Birmingham and Solihull, the need for more and more houses must not override the avoidance of urban sprawl that this part of Green Belt provides.

Yes

Representation ID: 89386

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Cllr David Armstrong

-Broad agreement that brownfield sites be used first.
-Concern over indirect and knock-on effects of site choices, and whether these will be clearly considered when making initial site choices.

Yes

Representation ID: 89424

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Charles Coldwell-Horsfall

B1 and X1 are totally unacceptable. Ruination of village life is deplorable. Surrounding and much needed infrastructure could not possibly cope.

No

Representation ID: 89445

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carolyn Lindsay

I understand that a sustainable plan is required for the future but it is better to develop this in areas around Leamington station as there are better road networks to the motorway and a station at leamington that could be expanded and more trains for commuters. The area needs a new hospital and schools rather than developing them in isolated green belt areas with poor infrastructure like Hatton.

Other

Representation ID: 89534

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Emily Carleton

The local plan is running for much too long a period. The local plan should not go all the way to 2050. I also strongly disagree with using ANY green belt land for this.

No

Representation ID: 89698

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Derek Bull

The proposed houses would be used in the majority for people working outside the local area.

Yes

Representation ID: 89739

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Compton Verney

n/a

Yes

Representation ID: 89765

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Dodd

I very much agree with the approach laid out but I would argue that some of the strategic growth areas - notably SG05 and SG06 run counter to the sustainable development requirements laid out in the draft policy direction and that therefore, they should not be included within the plan.

No

Representation ID: 89921

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Pillerton Priors Parish Council

You need to be absolutely sure that settlements in priority area 3, especially the small villages, can sustain development.
In 4.3 you consider whether there should be a revised settlement hierarchy . This may be a very good idea if we are to have genuine sustainability in Priority 3 areas.

No

Representation ID: 89939

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Mr O Johnson

The Local Plan must deliver houses in suitable numbers for residents but in suitable locations and must not disregard the Environment Act 2021 target of 30% of land allocated to nature and in recovery by 2030.

The Plan also allocates many housing sites in the Green Belt.

Warwickshire Wildlife Trust is not satisfied that the Councils have carried out a detailed Green Belt Review to include this land, particularly the Stage 2 work as well landscape impact assessments. No individual Flood Assessment work (SFRA part 2s), which should be carried out in order to help choose sites.