No

Representation ID: 102041

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Dave Steele

You list Radford Semele as a possible settlement location in Options 1,2&4 and on the option 5 map. Radford has been identified for another 50 to 100 dwellings. This is unacceptable as the village has already gained 300 houses in the last 10 years.
Also Your potential new settlements F1 and X2/FG11 are too close to other settlements - eg Ufton and Radford Semele and, more importantly, proposed new solar farms which in the case of F1 are WITHIN the proposed settlement.

Yes

Representation ID: 102080

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: BDW Trading Limited

Agent: Knight Frank LLP

BDW supports the proposed growth strategy (new settlements, strategic growth locations, and infill development) to ensure a balanced distribution of development throughout the plan period, effectively addressing housing and employment needs. New settlements are long-term projects requiring significant lead-in times (i.e. due to infrastructure), with large sites (2,000+ dwellings) averaging 6.3 years from validation of outline planning application to first completion. Strategic growth locations, due to partially using existing infrastructure, can deliver more rapidly, with sites of 500 to 999 dwellings averaging 5.4 years to first completion. This phased approach ensures consistent housing delivery throughout the plan period.

Yes

Representation ID: 102145

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr George Taylor

Development should be focused on new settlements, where a community, including local shops, hairdressers, doctors surgeries, etc. can be sustained. This would help meet the objectives of reducing the need to travel by car for everything.
These should also be allowed to develop some small light industry / office work in order provide jobs in the future within walking distance of where people live.

Other

Representation ID: 102150

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: LRM Planning

Whilst a further new settlement might be part of the Local Plan this should only ever be complementary to a spatial strategy that is based on the focus at ‘main towns’ in the first instance. The step change in housing completions necessary in the short and medium term are best met through extensions to existing main towns where a greater extent of facilities and services and infrastructure exists and are more readily accessible.

Yes

Representation ID: 102453

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Hill Residential

Agent: Turley

Hill Residential supports the principle of Draft Policy Direction 2 as it is clear new sttlement scale growth will bve necessary to meet the SWLP housing needs.

Other

Representation ID: 102481

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Deeley Homes Dean Weldon

The council also needs to release smaller and more immediately available sites whilst waiting for these larger ones to begin delivery.

No

Representation ID: 102504

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: IM Land 1 Limited

Agent: Turley

IM Land note that the Land off Rumbush Lane can provide up to 800 homes, in a highly sustainable location. The proposals will provide a sufficient critical mass that will support the delivery of new social infrastructure, including a new village centre and primary school to serve new residents. The site can provide a consistent supply of new homes to the district over the plan period. The Site should be considered as a potential new settlement.

Yes

Representation ID: 102527

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Norrie

New settlements should be built in the most sustainable locations. That they are new should allow them to be built as best practice sustainable settlements, with optimal densities, excellent sustainable transport infrastructure and state of the art design codes, etc already in place, as opposed to just increasing urban sprawl around the edges of existing settlements. Special consideration for the green belt is much less important than sustainable transport access, as the green belt designation has nothing to do with emissions, so there is no reason to oppose the proposed developments in the green belt.

No

Representation ID: 102546

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Rowington Parish Council

Agent: RCA Regeneration

The Parish Council strongly objects to the proposed New Settlement Location C1. Please refer to attached full PDF representation submission. In summary:
The proposed allocations should be re-assessed in light of the introduction of Grey Belt.
Allocations should not be required in the Green Belt.
New Settlement Location C1 is, on the Council's own assessment, less suitable for development than other options. It is not suitable due to its Green Belt Location, poor transport links, high landscape sensitivity, rural character, natural and built environment assets, infrastructure.
The site does not meet the minimum settlement size.
The site is not deliverable.

Other

Representation ID: 102606

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Peter Emmerson

I support the principle of creating new settlements, as opposed to the addition of large-scale developments attached to existing towns and villages. The former approach enables the careful planning of places that have character, are aesthetically pleasing, and have the potential to develop healthy communities. It also facilitates the provision of essential new infrastructure. The latter approach often results in damaging the character of existing settlements. It follows from this that I do not in general support the large-scale expansion of exisiting villages to meet housing demand. Very limited development within existing settlements is sometimes acceptable however.

No

Representation ID: 102634

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Matthew Newson

I cannot fully support Draft Policy Direction 2 as it risks undermining the council’s sustainability and climate resilience objectives. While new settlements could help meet housing needs, the focus on large-scale greenfield development conflicts with goals to protect biodiversity, reduce carbon emissions, and prioritise brownfield sites. The policy lacks sufficient detail on infrastructure delivery, such as transport, utilities, and services, which are critical for creating self-sufficient communities. A more balanced approach, emphasising smaller-scale development, infill sites, and enhancing existing settlements, would better align with the council’s vision for a sustainable South Warwickshire.

No

Representation ID: 102637

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Phoebe Withnall

Draft Policy Direction 2 assumes that new settlements can be developed sustainably but does not address key risks. Creating a new town requires substantial infrastructure—roads, schools, healthcare, utilities—yet there is no guarantee these will be in place when needed. The policy suggests that these settlements will be designed to reduce external trips, but many of the locations identified have poor transport links, making them heavily car-dependent. Large-scale development in open countryside risks permanent loss of farmland and natural habitats. Before committing to new settlements, there must be clear evidence that they are necessary, viable, and genuinely sustainable.

Other

Representation ID: 102720

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Deeley Homes Dean Weldon

Should supplement these with small sites given the lead-in time to begin delivering homes on new settlements.

No

Representation ID: 102770

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Summers Holdings Ltd

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

No, we fail to understand why some of the specific new settlement locations have been chosen and how disconnected they are from the Call for Sites exercises. We would also question the integrity of inviting further Call for Sites submissions where none were previously submitted. Were prospective new settlements to be identified then they should have drawn on the Call for Sites results, as they have been, as in the case of proposed new settlements A1 and A2, which are supported by our client.

Other

Representation ID: 102844

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Louisa Smith

Any new settlement MUST have infrastructure built first. Schools, GP's, Hospitals, Dentists, Community Centres, good road network, cycle paths, green space.

Other

Representation ID: 102944

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Deeley Homes Dean Weldon

Need to balance the delivery of larger sites with allocations of smaller sites to address the short term needs whilst awaiting the start of larger new settlements. Sites such as 820; Land East of Kineton Road, Pillerton Priors are suitable to address this short term need.

Other

Representation ID: 102956

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Deeley Homes

Agent: Delta Planning

Whilst Deeley Homes appreciates the aspirations to rely on the delivery of new settlements to meet housing need, it is considered that a balance, in terms of smaller scale sites, is required to deliver housing to meet the immediate need. There is therefore a need to secure and release immediately deliverable sites in sustainable locations. This will also benefit the Council’s ability to maintain their five year housing land supply. Deeley Homes considers that Land North of Leamington Road, Long Itchington, is a sustainable location to help meet this need.

Please refer to full response for further details.

No

Representation ID: 102995

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Christine Easton

It seems to me that the priority in all these proposals is to get houses built. Ignoring the lack of roads and infrastructure. Done new builds for not have pavements so they can get another house built! Wildlife doesn't seem to matter nor the sheer inconvenience whist they're bring built. WHERE IS HS2 on this map.
I have spent hours and hours in total waiting at various different traffic lights. Faced numerous road closures and re routing my journeys. Let's have joined up thinking when you plan these new builds. 25 years is too long!

No

Representation ID: 103054

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Chesterton and Kingston Parish Meeting

New settlements should be focussed on South Coventry where the infrastructure by road and rail is more sustainable

Yes

Representation ID: 103227

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Neal Appleton

More or less agree. New settlement locations should be in areas with an existing transport network that can be upgraded relatively easily.

No

Representation ID: 103252

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Summers Family

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

No, we fail to understand why some of the specific new settlement locations have been chosen and how disconnected they are from the Call for Sites exercises. We would also question the integrity of inviting further Call for Sites submissions where none were previously submitted. Were prospective new settlements to be identified then they should have drawn on the Call for Sites results.

Yes

Representation ID: 103348

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Jack Casey

Given the scale of development needed to meet the local housing need and economic need new settlements will be a necessary part of the Plan. Critically, paragraph 77 pf the NPPF states that larger scale developments, such as new settlements are often the best solution “…provided they are well located and designed and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities (including genuine choice of transport modes).” In the context of the south Warwickshire area, this must mean that new settlements are rail based. Proposed new settlement BW is unique in that is would be served by two rail stations.

Yes

Representation ID: 103386

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Norrie

Further to my previous submission:

Playing around with the mapping tool on the consultation website, it is evident that quite a few of these sites incorporate strands of land that belong to flood plains, and a lot also include woodlands, ancient woodlands, nature sites, etc. I don’t know if this means these are threatened, but certainly we shouldn’t be cutting down mature woodlands to build houses, or building on flood plains, and if that is intended, it would contradict policies in Chapter 11.

No

Representation ID: 103559

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr ian shenton

The logic of focussing on train stations is flawed as there is no guarantee that new residents will work in the vicinity of where the trains go to, will consider public transport above the car is not proven.
In addition we see productive farmland being given up for development rather than looking for grey/brown belt land. We need food security.
The infrastructure, especially the road network may not cope with the increased numbers of cars especially in the case of sites SG23 A1 A2 BW.
The cost benefit of road capacity expansion or rail expansion would be prohibitive and poor

No

Representation ID: 103592

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr ian shenton

large settlements lack communitive cohesiveness and the plans assume that residents will use public transport which can only happen if public transport goes to where people need to work, shop, eat, or relax. The over reliance on assuming that people will change their habits renders this approach to development at best fanciful and at worst illogical in todays society. Public transport is not able to meet the needs of the residents and substantial investment would be needed along with priority bus routes and direct connection for this assumption on sustainable communities to happen.

Other

Representation ID: 103663

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Phil Kohler

New Settlements must be provided with new critical infrastructure. As well as new schools, medical centres, supermarkets, etc. I would like to see an expansion of existing railway stations and the case made for a new station in the vicinity of Gaydon. This would not only serve existing residents and residents of any new settlements, but also provide much better access to residents from Southam and nearby villages.
I would also like to see the case being made for a new M40 Junction, between Hatton and Kingswood. This would significantly reduce traffic coming from that area to the Longbridge junction.

No

Representation ID: 103702

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Garry Rollason

Whilst I agree that the development of new settlements is appropriate, as opposed to the dispersed approach, it is vital that the location(s) selected are suitable. The policy should specify that new settlements will only be permitted outside of the Green Belt. There is too much emphasis in the new settlements approach on rail corridors - aligning new settlements with existing rail stations is only valid if the stations concerned can cope with increased demand, are easily accessible with good road links and facilities can be improved. This is clearly not the case with a number of rural stations such as Hatton and Lapworth. The policy needs to be refined.

No

Representation ID: 103761

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Sarah Shalgosky

Proposed settlements are within the Green Belt. which is detrimental to designated sites and protected/declining species.

Affected sites include:

River Alne LWS, Round Wood & Long Wood LWS, Grove Wood PLWS, Grotton Hill Wood LWS; Gilbert’s & Claypits coppices, Linnear Woodland LWS; AONB, Meon Vale LWS, River Avon LWS, greenway, dismantled railway, Welford Hill Farm Meadows PLWS, Rumerhill Coppice PLWS, Coxmere Coppice PLWS; Newfoundland Wood LWS, Stratford Canal PLWS, River Avon LWS, wood by Churchill; Itchington Holt PLWS; Long Itchington & Ufton woods SSSI; Deppers Bridge Meadow PLWS; South Southam LWS and disused railway LWS.

Yes

Representation ID: 103807

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Scott Haberton

We need more industry and facilities

No

Representation ID: 103826

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Clarke

The emphasis should be on development of existing brown field and grey field sites. That should be the over-riding requirement. It may be easier and cheaper to develop on green belt/agricultural land but it is a one-way route. Once built over, they will never become agricultural again.
Instead, the authorities should look at more imaginative use of land that has been developed previously and is now redundant or requiring change of use.
It is ironic that the images used for consultation on-line events and frontispieces show quintessential Warwickshire whereas the plans advocate development that could be anywhere in Britain.