No

Representation ID: 85959

Received: 10/01/2025

Respondent: Graham Ball

If there are growth needs outside South Warwickshire, we should not have to accommodate these needs. If you neighbour had too many children, you wouldn't house their children in your spare bedroom. It was their choice to have too many children. (Text redacted)

Moreover, the fertility rate in the UK is less than 2 children per woman, so population should be declining. So there is no housing need from the UK. Therefore, there is no need to accommodate growth from outside South Warwickshire.

No

Representation ID: 85994

Received: 11/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sian Corrie

South Warwickshire should be preserved as a distinct cultural, social and economic area.

Areas outside the area should accommodate growth in land directly adjacent to the area of need thereby retaining that community.

Yes

Representation ID: 86000

Received: 11/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kate Harris

I think this is a sensible and appropriate policy approach

No

Representation ID: 86057

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Sandy McCaskie

Will increase commuter traffic and associated pollution

No

Representation ID: 86088

Received: 12/01/2025

Respondent: Clive Corrie

South Warwickshire should not be used as an overspill area for Covenrtry and the Birmingham Conurbation.

A considerable amount of the land under consideration for development is Green Belt. One of the aims of creating the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl, accommodating the needs of cities outside South Wawrickshire will result in urban sprawl.

No

Representation ID: 86315

Received: 21/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Daniel Chandler

Appreciate that joined up thinking is required on certain local issues, however it is absurd to take the on the housing requirements from Greater Birmingham and Black Country in Warwick. There are untold numbers of brownfield sites, that already have better infrastructure in place in their boundaries than increasing the load on other councils.

No

Representation ID: 86327

Received: 21/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Ashcroft

We should not be forced to adopt other areas' housing needs, particularly giving up important greenbelt land in place of urban growth and development

No

Representation ID: 86401

Received: 23/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sheila Chennells

I have explained earlier why we should not act on the proposals in a positive way.

Yes

Representation ID: 86426

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Mr HAYDN REES

The duty to cooperate needs to work in all directions. In the Lapworth area there needs to be cooperation with Solihull both in the Hockley Heath area and the Knowle/Darley Green boundary areas. Coordination and timings of infrastructure and buildings work is vital if unnecessary years of disruption are to be avoided

No

Representation ID: 86447

Received: 25/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carole Johnson

There is sufficient land within these areas that should be used and therefore should be used until no such land is available

Other

Representation ID: 86518

Received: 27/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Terry Simmonds

Depends, don't build housing for people outside South Warwickshire (Birmingham for example) if they will just be commuting back to Birmingham (or other) after in to area of South Warwickshire

No

Representation ID: 86583

Received: 28/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Bridgewater

The support by Developers for contributing to the unmet housing needs of other areas is purely for self interest and profit purposes. The region is not a money making resource for the wealthy.

PLEASE treat the views of Developers with a degree of scepticism.

No

Representation ID: 86588

Received: 28/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Bridgewater

Development should focus on maintaining the current developed footprint wherever possible. This means that the more urban areas the the North should be developing denser housing rather than taking the easier and cheaper option of spilling into south Warwickshire.

No

Representation ID: 86602

Received: 28/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Darrell Muffitt

Although the evidence highlights a requirement to cooperate this should not translate to a n obligation to take on unmet quotas simply because the Birmingham and Coventry Local Authorities fail to meet their targets. Whereas I can accept that consideration should be given where there is a suitable site close to the boundaries between the SWLP area and the major conurbations, I cannot accept the burden being put onto rural areas.

No

Representation ID: 86619

Received: 28/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Trevor Bradnam

No

Yes

Representation ID: 86742

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Linda Dane

However any provision of housing land for needs outside the SWLP area should be strictly limited in scope.

No

Representation ID: 86820

Received: 30/01/2025

Respondent: Ms Davinia Fisher

Impact on Greenbelt Land and Wildlife The proposed site is designated Greenbelt land, which serves to prevent urban sprawl, protect farmland, and preserve natural habitats. Developing this area would result in the irreversible loss of valuable green space, endangering local wildlife and disrupting ecosystems.The destruction of farmland further threatens local biodiversity and food sustainability. Strain on Local Infrastructure Our village lacks the necessary infrastructure to support such an expansion. There is over stretched doctor’s surgery Additionally, local schools and public services will struggle to accommodate an increased population, reducing the quality of life for both current and future residents.

No

Representation ID: 86866

Received: 30/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Adrian Hopkinson

A large part of the growth in population in our cities has been caused by the expansion of the universities. Students are normally encouraged to mix in with their educational community so that residence outside those cities is not satisfactory.
They contribute to the lively community in Coventry and Birmingham.

No

Representation ID: 86898

Received: 31/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Arthur Hogan-Fleming

Why should we pay for government failure to control immigration?

No

Representation ID: 87003

Received: 02/02/2025

Respondent: S Gardner

There is a discussion to be had which is where are all the people coming from for these houses? And, does the south Warwickshire plan have enough stop or pause points, to prevent more than needed dwellings/homes being build that won’t be needed,. Also, how does the council intend to push back on surrounding areas that are not achieving their plans, putting pressure on south Warwickshire to build on their behalf,

No

Representation ID: 87183

Received: 06/02/2025

Respondent: Mr peter guest

we should not use the greenbelt as an excuse to force all development into the south of south warwickshire

Yes

Representation ID: 87371

Received: 08/02/2025

Respondent: Cllr Andrew Day

None

No

Representation ID: 87551

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: Michaelina Jakala

No I do not support any accommodating growth needs arising from outside South Warwickshire. Again areas and infrastructure cannot even handle what we currently have.

No

Representation ID: 87558

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: mrs susan morris

South Warwickshire should only be accommodating its own growth needs

Yes

Representation ID: 87710

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mr justin kerridge

any reserve sites for duty to cooperate business or housing should pay particular attention to transport of goods and people and not contribute to road congestion. Active travel routes and public transport is important. Sites to accomodate neighbouring authority growth may not be the same as those devised for south warwickshire growth and should be planned on an individual need when that need arises. not using sites considered for south warwickshire growth

No

Representation ID: 87794

Received: 11/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Smith

The Road Network through Leamington Spa and Warwick can NOT support further Population Growth in these Towns.

Adequate Schools and Shops is a problem, and accessibility of the Hospital, and ability for Emergency Services to delivery will be a Big Problem, potentially leading to more casualties. WHO will take Responsibility and Ownership for these Statistics?

There are a more than adequate number of New Houses being built between Leamington Spa, Warwick and the M40. Plus Bishops Tachbrook and Radford Semele.

STOP NOW!

No

Representation ID: 87806

Received: 11/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Emily Godson

I don't think it is possible to comment on this when the justification below acknowledges that you don't have enough information. I would want to understand exactly why there is unmet need and why the areas in question need support from other areas instead of addressing it themselves.

Yes

Representation ID: 87880

Received: 12/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Steve Taylor

support

No

Representation ID: 88037

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Quantrill

Housing needs should be specific for that area only and not use sites eleswhere.

No

Representation ID: 88038

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sharon Quantrill

I dont believe what is proposed is sustainable development. All brownfield sites should be used for sustainable development before any greenbelt land either degraded or not be considered. There are enough brownfield sites that could be used all over the UK. A co-ordinated approach needs to be carried out by all local councils for sustainable development and the excuse of no sites within one area is not a good enough excuse to use other areas.