No

Representation ID: 90270

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Edwards

If the immigration (illegal) issue were not so intense, we would not need to ravage unspoilt land and undermine community quality of life to such an extent. This is the elephant in this particular room.

No

Representation ID: 90424

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Dr Louise Stewart

There is sufficient overall housing stock available, even accounting for net migration and population growth, so that additional stock is not required. People especially in Birmingham and Black Country are reluctant to move away from their roots (I have worked health in this area for 25 years so understand the population well) and families. Make better use of what’s already there before building more stock.

No

Representation ID: 90471

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Jayne Jones

Post Covid we are facing increasing housing costs from London based staff who are now working from home. If the purpose is affordable housing, this isn't it!

No

Representation ID: 90799

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Maxine Mayer

I do not agree with the scope of the statement. The Black Country's needs are far better met by Staffordshire and Coventry by Rugby, North Warks and Northants.

No

Representation ID: 90934

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs sarah wood

Surely local councils in growth arising outside of Warwickshire are also planning for the needs.

No I strongly object to allowing inter council growth to be met.

No

Representation ID: 90950

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Matthew Schofield

Growth needs in Birmingham should be met in Birmingham where high density housing already exists and where low rise and high rise accommodation can be used to meet need. There are large swathes of undeveloped brown field sites in the city that could be used rather than building on green belt in neighbouring districts.

Other

Representation ID: 91080

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Julian Brown

Agree. I believe it has to be on a case by case basis with appropriate review, impact, benefits and consultations by the people. If a larger conurbation outside our jurisdiction requires we grow we need to understand the reasons and evidence if our county is the ideal choice location.

Other

Representation ID: 91115

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Radford Semele Parish Council

‘Radford Semele Parish Council understands the requirement for co-operation with
neighbouring authorities. The parish council’s impression is that the calculation of figures for
the accommodation of the growth needs in Coventry and Birmingham and the Black Country
has been contentious and it believes that the current government has not made this any
better.
Given the amount of growth which has been accommodated in South Warwickshire recently
the parish council believes that the SWLP should provide for the minimum level of out-ofarea growth which is acceptable.’

No

Representation ID: 91135

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs liz jackson

.

No

Representation ID: 91226

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Norman

Basically drives a 'coach and horses' though all the upfront principles and strategic objectives

Yes

Representation ID: 91277

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Mr justin kerridge

I have previously stated that new settlements A2 and A1 are inappropriate as they would contribute to urban sprawl and merging Redditch with Birmingham. Sg24 makes more sense BUT is still distant from The main area of Solihull and Birmingham which these developments will serve. There is loads of space near Birmingham and Solihull that can cater for development to serve their populations and would be far better served by an extended public transport system and access to services.

No

Representation ID: 91284

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Graeme Findlay

Local infrastructure / wildlife / local services / mobile signals / power circuitry cannot support this development. There are plenty of housing development opportunities 2 miles from here in Blythe Valley and the M42 corridor. I’d encourage better cross planning authority coordination

No

Representation ID: 91474

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Duncombe

No Comment

Other

Representation ID: 91534

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Beth Palmer

I think preference should be given to those with connections to or family in the local area

Other

Representation ID: 91689

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Taylor

You haven't mentioned any other UK housing need from Climate refugees - e.g the area around The Wash and The Fens is expcted to be flooded with a 1 m rise in sea level - Will these plans take into account people moving from these areas?

No

Representation ID: 91958

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kitten Von mew

We have had a HUGE amount of housing built in recent years, so I don’t see why we need to take on any more of the burden.

No

Representation ID: 91979

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mr James OShea

Each authority needs to plan for their own growth. The Green Belt needs to be reduced in order to facilitate this rather than expecting neighbouring authorities to take their growth.

No

Representation ID: 92015

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Valerie Whittaker

The road and rail infrastructure in this area is woefully inadequate to support a new settlement. Even now it is very difficult to get to the A46 from Hatton in the early morning rush hour and it would be nigh on impossible with the proposed new houses. Hatton railway station is approached by a small country lane, there is very little parking and Chiltern railways have said the line is full to capacity therefore no more trains would stop there. The Green Belt is meant to prevent urban sprawl. This settlement would join us all the way to Leamington Spa.

No

Representation ID: 92211

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Laura Gibb

This is just developers’ way of making sure they have more access to green belt land to build on and ruin our beautiful county more than it already has been over the last decade.

No

Representation ID: 92226

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Sara Burney

Birmingham and other inner-city areas have plenty of derelict buildings, decrepit housing estates, and brownfield sites that could be put to much better use. The reality is that local authorities don't want to use these types of land and property, because it's not as easy (or headline-grabbing) as throwing up an entire new housing estate. If we do not regenerate the existing areas, then we'll end up with slums and crumbling buildings in certain areas, whilst other areas are full of shiny newbuilds. Look after what you already have before building anew.

No

Representation ID: 92250

Received: 27/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Steph Johnson

- Empty homes exist in the above areas
- The Green Belt must be protected
- Other areas have more infrastructure and capacity and are already linked to the above areas
- Linking villages together to create towns affects the character and wildlife of the British Countryside and should be a last resort

No

Representation ID: 92361

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Harbury Parish Council

We think that neighbouring authorities need to work harder to meet demand, including repurposing buildings etc.

No

Representation ID: 92384

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Christine Slaughter

Stratford-upon-Avon town has already had one of the highest building rates in the country.

No

Representation ID: 92557

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Bex Thomson

Do not agree with any development in green belt

No

Representation ID: 92589

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Phillip Johnson

I do not agree with this policy. Accommodating the Growth needs arising from outside South Warwickshire will change the character of the district and will further overload an already overloaded infrastructure.
This is a policy initiated by the current Government. This policy will no doubt change following the next General Election. Any SWLP policies and plans need to be robust to potential changes in political direction and priorities.

No

Representation ID: 92636

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Claire Bond

Hockley Heath is a small village with limited amenities and one village one formentary primary school and struggles with secondary school places. The traffic is already extremely busy and the village is being saturated by the plans by both Warwickshire and Solihull and will be completely overwhelmed if these were to go ahead. This can not be supported.

No

Representation ID: 92726

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Mervyn Longford

Growth needs arising from outside Warwickshire should be maintained at the closest proximity to the deficit, preferably
North Warwickshire,

No

Representation ID: 92776

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jon Cheek

No the reserves sites should not be release as this will loose our green belt area and thus should be maintained and all potential brown field sites should be identified and developed in the first instance

Also surely looking to far into the future is not always a good thing as the further you look the less accurate the predictions are and as the current government and council might not be in power in 5 years so sure we need to plan ahead accordingly ie 5year plan an build the smaller developments on brownfield site to meet the actual requirements

Other

Representation ID: 92882

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Summix Planning Limited

Emphasis should be given to identifying and allocating sites which retain strong links to the place of origin of any cross border housing. In the case of Henley in Arden land immediately adjacent to the station would be logical given the ability to access the station and enable residents with links back to the conurbation to travel for work or socially in a sustainable manner.

No

Representation ID: 93324

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Cllr David Armstrong

Specifically I do not agree with releasing reserve sites if the 5-year housing land supply falls below threshold. I appreciate there may be a legal requirement making this unavoidable, but the 5-year supply is driven by developer willingness to take forward sites, and releasing further sites does not necessarily affect that. If such sites are more profitable but restricted for other reasons, e.g. Green Belt, then there is a clear incentive on developers to slow construction in order to release these sites.