Other

Representation ID: 93322

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Cllr David Armstrong

I am supportive of the approach but think that a relatively small threshold size (less than 5 houses) should be adopted to ensure that over time cumulative effects on infrastructure are not significant.

No

Representation ID: 93388

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Daryl Kerin

Green Belt to be protected. Urban Spawl needs to cease. Other countries recognise the issue and have started ceasing extending urban boundaries. Focus on Infill, Brownfield sites and build up. Agricultural land to be protected especially grade 1 to 3 unless the UK has decided to cease supporting it own agricultural industry. This includes excluding protective farmland from becoming solar farms. The Call of Sites has now identified sites to be considered for solar panels once housing declined.

Yes

Representation ID: 93438

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Denise Holroyde

Agreed this is a sensible approach

Yes

Representation ID: 93529

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Bernard Davis

n/a

No

Representation ID: 93537

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jill Coates

All the areas shown in pink and purple north and south of Leek Wootton, especially those bordering Warwick Road and A46, seriously compromise the integrity of the village (Refence response from Inspectorate in WDC 2017 Local Plan..."need to maintain the separate identity of surrounding villages such as LW and Cubbington, and avoid significant expansion of the built-up area into currently open countryside.")
The existing brown and grey nominated areas within SW provide more than enough capacity for housing needs to 2050.

No

Representation ID: 93539

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lesley Kirkwood

Re 116, 2, 603 HELAA sites
Leek Wootton is a designated growth village and as such the Cala Development is already fulfilling this obligation.
These sites would see an unreasonable increase in the village of 200% way beyond that envisaged by the village and the planners
Ref 93 site
This again is an unjustifiable erosion of the green belt.
This goes against the policy of ensuring the integrity of Warwickshire villages viz. Leek Wootton
Ref 231, 117 Again these sites would unnecessarily encroach on the green belt

No

Representation ID: 93540

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jane Markham

In many instances, these proposed "small scale development" proposals relate to areas which are most definitely not not small scale within their immediate context and surroundings. They would place additional burdens on local infrastructure already in deficit by a long way and will impact upon visual amenity and, in some cases, encroach upon land within conservation areas. They will additionally impact on local wildlife and destroy habitat which has been in place for all time. Access to and from these areas is in locations where local road infrastructure is simply not in place and could not be put in place.

Yes

Representation ID: 93585

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Alan Griffith

I agree that small scale devlopment inline with Neighbourhood Plan and land within the conabation of towns is essential .
It is recognised however that some Parishes may be asked to revisit there Neighbourhood Plans to take into consideration some new small scale housing developments to meet future needs. If this does not happen services/facilities in some villages could be lost. This type of development would not compromise the green belt such as the BW settlement proposal.

No

Representation ID: 93619

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Tim Strafford

Small-scale development in Green Belt locations should not be supported if they reduce the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment.

No

Representation ID: 93695

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr John Archer

The infrastructure supporting Lapworth is just not robust. Access roads from M42 jct 5 are lanes which Sat Nav takes you down. These lanes are rural, single (Chessetts Woor rd, Rising lane, Mill lane) which are already congested in rush hour & weekend. Horses, bikes, cars, pedestrian routes from Packwood to Baddersley with no footpath. Lots of photos for evidence

No

Representation ID: 93703

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Amar Jessel

Development on these areas would be highly disproportionate to the existing size of the existing community. The currently granted development at the Police Headquarters already provide growth in accordance with the current Local Plan requirements for Growth Villages and therefore additional development as unnecessary and contrary to the existing Local Plan Policy.

Established greenbelt, therefore goes against safeguarding countryside from encroachment (a key pillar of greenbelt review).

Highlighted area is of high agricultural quality and as a result settlements will be required to protect best and most versatile agricultural land

Yes

Representation ID: 93776

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr William Campbell

Agree in principle

No

Representation ID: 94038

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Stuart Mace

Where small scale developments happen, the quantum of properties should be considered in the same way as for major settlements and developers be required to jointly contribute to improvement of infrastructure in the vicinity. There is a risk that small scale developments are designed in such a way as to pass under the radar, placing significant stress on local services and not delivering benefit to the existing residents of an area.

No

Representation ID: 94086

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Horton

I am extremely concerned by the proposed removal of Green Belt from within the district. Planning Policy states we want a beautiful environment, and I fail to see how removal of such large swathes of green belt land adheres to this policy.
Many of the proposed ‘small scale’ developments are in very rural locations where the infrastructure already struggles with current population and the road networks are creaking with traffic already.

Yes

Representation ID: 94293

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Waters

It is a good idea to allow limited growth in existing built up areas within reason. The only obvious risk is the repeated use of this policy on the same location for example turning a village into a town.

Yes

Representation ID: 94342

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: James Springate

But Green belt areas outside of village boundaries must be protected at all costs.
Building adjacent to a boundary is simply an excuse to keep creeping the boundary.

No

Representation ID: 94424

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Eldridge

Leek Wootton & Guys Cliffe Parish was a growth village in the current Local Plan and has had its "growth"with developments being granted for 88 dwellings on 2 sites some 30% increase in size of the village. I therefore disagree with any proposals to further grow the village. I therefore do not agree with any of the proposed sites on plan particularly those that are of a size that would double or even more the size of the village.

No

Representation ID: 94426

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Helen Eldridge

I object to development of any sites along the main north/south route between Warwick and Kenilworth. Green belt is thin between Coventry and Warwick and in order to prevent merging of two towns (Kenilworth and Warwick) any development along the Warwick Road south of Kenilworth should not be permitted. Sites at Hill Wootton are not practical and development will destroy character and similar to north/south route in Leek Wootton, the east/west route between Kenilworth and Leamington Spa requires similar protection.

No

Representation ID: 94457

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Johnson

I am particularly concerned that small pockets of development will take place without due regard to infrastructure overload, specifically in the area between Rowington and Hockley Heath, either as part of SG24 or discreet plots. Considerations such as the Doctors surgery, electricity supply, the primary school, mobile phone network ‐ all at or close to capacity without the added demand from further population increases. I doubt that small scale development will bring any further resource and is in many ways a worse outcome for the area than a well planned and funded New Settlement C1.

No

Representation ID: 94468

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Farrow

n/a

Other

Representation ID: 94566

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon Town Centre Strategic Partnership

so long as we can provide employment within the existing centres and avoid over development

No

Representation ID: 94686

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Dunster

Land at The Greens, South of Alcester Road, Stratford upon Avon, CV37 9DF. REFID: 492 and South of Alcester Road, Stratford-upon-Avon. REFID: 827.
The boundaries were clearly laid out in the local Development plan, after careful consideration, I can see no justification into changing those clearly set and identified boundaries, which will bring more areas into the plan. What is that justification.
If these boundaries can be changed willie-nilliy what's the point of having a Local Neighborhood plan in the first place.

No

Representation ID: 94782

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Kineton Parish Council

Reviewing and updating Settlement Boundaries MUST BE carried out in consultation with the Neighbourhood Development Plan holder

Sites adjacent to the BUAB would be permitted based on a threshold which is to “be determined” and linked to the Priority Area ranking. These criteria are far too weak and totally unacceptable. The Policy as drafted would encourage unwelcome, unwarranted developer-attention and totally weaken the rationale for Settlement Boundaries

Other

Representation ID: 94815

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford-upon-Avon Town Transport Group

A proliferation of small scale developments may result in circling historic towns providing a collar affecting both the effectiveness of new development and the pre-existing town. Therefore the cumulative effect of small scale developments should be included in the acceptability analysis.

No

Representation ID: 94930

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Darren Downes

The proposal is NOT a small scale development within the green belt. This is basically a small new town and does not border any existing town that could meet the infrastructure requirements.

Yes

Representation ID: 94937

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Fenny Compton Parish Council

We agree with the principles in this proposal. It is important to preserve the character of our countryside by limiting the extent to which small scale developments can gradually extend the built up area of a community and consequently diminish the amenity of the surrounding countryside. If anything we would like to see stronger limits on the provision of sites adjacent to BUABs.

No

Representation ID: 95091

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Ruth Dixon

No

No

Representation ID: 95108

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anna Finerty

I disagree

Other

Representation ID: 95165

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Matthew Henry

I don't agree with the scale of building that is proposed across the entire country with this new administration.
Who can afford the houses? Are populations increasing? Birth rate is not, so is this intended to be replacement of exiting dwellings with newer more energy efficient homes?
If not, why don't all new builds have solar panels on rather than ereccting huge solar farms to swallow up yet more green belt, which spoils views, and reduces productive farmland. If nobody in the country wants this many extra houses, why are we being bullied by central government? Is this Communist China?

Yes

Representation ID: 95202

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Edward Wilson

Small scale development well planned and sized to meet local needs with the right size of housing stock is ideal. A good example is the rural housing development in Harbury.