Yes

Representation ID: 90055

Received: 22/02/2025

Respondent: Catherine Hewson

Allowing for small-scale growth outside of strategic areas.

No

Representation ID: 90077

Received: 22/02/2025

Respondent: Catherine Hewson

I am concerned by the scale of the proposed housing, which seems grossly exaggerated. The Plan reports a need for 1,679 dwellings per annum, but suggests allocating 600 surplus houses to allow sufficient flexibility. This will have a significant negative impact on the important habitats and protected species across the area. 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.

No

Representation ID: 90116

Received: 22/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon James Victor Miesegaes

there are no local buses and there will be an increase in traffic resulting in further pollution.

No

Representation ID: 90635

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Oliver Ashford

thids is a test 2

No

Representation ID: 90723

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Averil Stewart

Places lke Claverdon, which have their own railway stations have not even been considered?? Hatton has, so why not Claverdon also

No

Representation ID: 90921

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Matthew Schofield

It is not clear how building houses at the level suggested can be done "sustainably", particularly in regards to car use. This area has a car culture (think JLR) and it is not obvious that current efforts to move towards public transport and bike use have been successful in changing this culture.

Other

Representation ID: 91056

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Julian Brown

In part yes and I have made appropriate comments regarding site locations.

Other

Representation ID: 91102

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Radford Semele Parish Council

Radford Semele Parish Council supports the option identified, but it is undermined because other sites put forward by developers are still being considered. These other sites should be deleted.
The District Council should challenge the governments housing targets for the area.

No

Representation ID: 91385

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Michelle Mendoza

How confident is the committee that the housing number targets are valid. We are being told in the media, that birth rates in the UK are falling considerably. Mortality rates are stagnating, with people becoming less healthy due to obesity and other preventable illnesses.

I fear that large areas of farmland will be destroyed which may over time become redundant, due to falling need. It would take many years for such areas to be returned to an eco-friendly environment.

No

Representation ID: 91443

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Lucia Restall Orr

The scale of proposed development seems highly excessive to the level of detrimental and counterproductive to environment commitments and needs. It also crosses into the Green Belt, disrupts numerous important habitats and existing sites, and there is no evidence of sufficient reviews or assessments to support to use of restricted land in this way.

Yes

Representation ID: 91465

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Duncombe

I understand the requirement, and agree with the approach, but similar methods have been tried before and suggestions/promises made, which have not come to fruition, if this is just going to be the same then it will not help the residents.

No

Representation ID: 91508

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Beth Palmer

Stratford and beyond have fulfilled their quota for building and no more is required

No

Representation ID: 91525

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Wellesbourne and Walton Parish Council

Housing needs survey to inform our need going forward not arbitrary figures. Employment land is already increasing with current proposals with no infrastructure to support it. No evaluation of the current road system to support development and no infrastructure proposed to support the needs of current residents and proposed future residents and businesses.

No

Representation ID: 91526

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mary Adams

I am extremely concerned by the scale of the proposed housing, which seems grossly exaggerated. The Plan reports a need for 1,679 dwellings per annum, but suggests allocating 600 surplus houses to allow sufficient flexibility. This will have a significant negative impact on the important habitats and protected species across the area. 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. Do not build on Green Belt land.

No

Representation ID: 91738

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Ms miranda maloney

N/A

No

Representation ID: 91830

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carole Johnson

1. Hampton Magna will be become a rat run for people to access Jct 15 if the amount of housing in the plan for Hatton and Hampton Magna is approved.
2. Birmingham Rd and Stanks Island cannot cope now with the current number of cars.
3. Hatton Station has no direct links to London/Birmingham so commuters will drive to Warwick Parkway.
4. Warwick Hospital is at capacity already.
5. No places at Schools, Doctors/Dentists.
6. Encroached continually on the green belt with erode all green belt in the area.

No

Representation ID: 91843

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Matthew Hetherington

The approach doesn't take into full consideration the availability of medical care, education, road layouts, traffic, and current flood risk (surveys are outdated and do not consider the current housing usage and weather), let alone the damage to green belt (not just about diversity - safe barriers between villages).

No

Representation ID: 91877

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Bex Thomson

Do not agree

No

Representation ID: 91893

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Bridgette Brown

- the potential for 12 new settlements and 24 strategic growth areas is exceptionally vast. The infrastructure in the area is not sufficient. Roads, Schools and Surgeries are at capacity.

No

Representation ID: 91943

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Christopher Priestman

The New Settlement Assessment (as at Preferred Options) paper sets out the approach to assessing the potential new settlement locations, drawing on a range of sources used for the assessment. Four of the 12 potential new settlement locations (including site E1 at Meon Vale / Long Marston Airfield) are categorised as more suitable options, eight as classed as less suitable. It is noted that Site E1 scores RED (ie poor) on the transport assessment.

No

Representation ID: 91957

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mr James OShea

There are a number of strategic locations as per my comments where growth should take place due to their available infrastructure both in highways and rail availability and accessibility.

The introduction of growth south of Stratford upon Avon has always been a mistake and will continue to be a mistake.
Not only is it an area which is close to the AONB and higher value landscape it is highly unsustainable for highways reasons predominantly but also it is furthest from main employment centres. Stratford simply can not cope with further development in this location

Yes

Representation ID: 92102

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Vincent

Selecting some strategic growth locations and potentially a few new settlements is a sensible approach, and far better than adding lots of smaller additions/extensions everywhere

No

Representation ID: 92214

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Sara Burney

Absolutely not. Growth is not simply about building more boxes, or running the county on a spreadsheet. People live in these areas and have chosen them for character and community, along with quality of life. To impose thousands of new buildings - whether commercial or housing - is shortsighted and neglects the fact that there are actual human beings involved. You cannot simply say "there's room for 100 units there" without looking at the bigger picture - that this plan will rip up the countryside, replacing grass with concrete, forever, and without having made significant prior investment in infrastructure. Lunacy.

No

Representation ID: 92308

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr James Wilkinson

We will never need that many houses as there will never be the jobs to support them. There are already many developments with undeveloped plots and unsold houses.

No

Representation ID: 92349

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Julie Reynolds

The plans will destroy south Warwickshire by over developing, losing our wild belt, over development and building on or near vital spaces key for nature and wildlife. Do not build on these green spaces. We need to protect and preserve these spaces for our mental wellbeing, health and wildlife. How can you reach your goal of 30% space devoted to nature by doing this.
The policy does not provide enough detail on how important environmental assets will be protected and enhanced, especially when a large number of the allocations are next to and even covering important designated Local Wildlife Sites

No

Representation ID: 92385

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Stuart Alford

While the proposals are generally high-level, there is a clear contradiction between preserving green spaces and enhancing biodiversity versus the extensive development plans. It’s important to recognize that such widespread development is inherently detrimental to the environment and local biodiversity. Any suggestion otherwise misrepresents the true impact of the so-called ‘sustainable’ development.”

No

Representation ID: 92548

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Bex Thomson

Do not agree with any development on green belt

No

Representation ID: 92556

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Phillip Johnson

I reject building on Green Belt. The Green Belt is important to protect the countryside from urban sprawl and retain the character of rural communities. It is important for health and wellbeing of residents, as well as the UK's food security. Many animals and birds rely on it. In particular, building on site B1 would be a death sentence for wildlife. Green Belt contributes significantly towards reducing and mitigating climate change.

NPPF Paragraph 147 confirms that Green Belt should not be developed if other options exist. The classification of Green Belt Land in the Plan and the technical evidence appears dubious, inconsistent and confusing. I suspect that consultants have been commissioned to give a non-balanced view. NPPF Paragraph 157 sets out increased affordable housing requirements of up to 50% where Green Belt is released. This and likely requirements for new Highways Infrastructure will make building on Green Belt unattractive and unviable for developers. Where they do decide to build they will pressure the Local Authority to relax the rules and build more profitable executive homes.

No

Representation ID: 92826

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Graham Ball

The council should implement policies that provide most benefit to its current voters. A net increase in number of houses is not required for existing voters. Government housing targets can be ignored without consequence. Building houses is unsustainable, incompatible with the UK's legal net zero obligations and harms the welfare of current voters.

No

Representation ID: 92858

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Debra Thomas

Too many houses are being built in Kenilworth, little if none meeting the needs of young Kenilworth people who are forced to move away from family and friends due to the wrong type of houses being built.

Kenilworth also requires more infrastructure such as nurserys, schools, doctors, shops etc.