No

Representation ID: 99558

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Katie Wilcox

How will bringing more people in from outside the area help?

No

Representation ID: 99559

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Welford on Avon Parish Council

History shows that there is a demographic shift away from cities and as such there is not a need to concrete over more open countryside. Coventry didnt hit its housing needs targets.

Redevelopemt of industrial land should be the first priority.

No

Representation ID: 99653

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Steven Murray

Any development should NOT be in green belt or in conservation areas. There is a risk of double counting on an ever widening pool of potential housing requirements. Our open countryside will be at risk of loss if care and consideration to preserving green belt and conservation areas are NOT prioritised for preservation for our future generations to enjoy.

No

Representation ID: 99964

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Ann Colley

Current public transport links from some of the areas, do not cover the areas where growth may not be met. This would put more pressure on the road networks instead due to increase in travel times required to commute from home to work.

No

Representation ID: 99991

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Adrian Parsons

This option would inevitably lead to greater carbon emissions, loss of biodiversity and green space

No

Representation ID: 100105

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Neil Brooker

There is more than enough brown field sites in Birmigham and Coventry areas, no fields should be bult upon whilst they remain undeveloped

No

Representation ID: 100150

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Cooper

South Warwickshire has already experienced a huge growth in housing since the M40 was built. Accommodating growth from outside the area would be hugely detrimental to amenities, services, and local infrastructure. Facilitating other areas would simply create commuter zones in South Warwickshire requiring more road networks and transport that would certainly undermine any Zero Carbon ambitions.

Yes

Representation ID: 100230

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

NA

No

Representation ID: 100345

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr peter spreadbury

It is important to consider the need for housing for people from a larger catchment area. However it can not be in keeping with the sustainability objectives in the plan that would bring large numbers of people into an area when the employment, leisure, health, education needs are not provided versus large towns like Coventry and Birmingham that have far more of each of the above. Where the supporting infrastructure needs can not me met, residents will potentially travel substantial distances to reach their required employment, leisure, health, education needs etc.

No

Representation ID: 100539

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Vanessa Chivers

I understand there is a need to build new housing, however, I do not accept the need to build housing for other councils. This approach will further develop the Warwickshire landscape far beyond what is currently expected. And will this set a precedent for future proposals? I would expect Birmingham or Coventry to turn down their expected development numbers and for these, if allowed, to be built across the UK, and not simply just in neighbouring areas of beauty.

No

Representation ID: 100566

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Pauline James

The residential respondents were right – this plan should NOT be addressing unmet needs in the Greater Birmingham and Black Country Housing Market Area! The plan serves the developers not residents.

The vast acreages of proposed settlements suggests low density luxury houses unaffordable by most early career singles, couples and families. It would lose thousands of acres of farmland to concrete, damaging future development, and the rural economy. It could turn villages into dormitories, and lanes into rat runs as Birmingham’s commuters overload the local transport systems with people trying to get back to their jobs.

Other

Representation ID: 100684

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Gladman Developments

The SWLP will need to consider how it will deal with the issue of unmet housing and employment needs arising from the Coventry and Warwickshire HMA (both Warwick
DC and Stratford DC local authority areas) and the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA(GBBCHMA) (Stratford-on-Avon DC only). To assist in the understanding of the calculations used, Gladman suggest that the unmet housing needs of each area (Birmingham, Black Country and Coventry) should be considered separately. The quantum of unmet need from each area needs to be clearly set out. Where the unmet need arising from may affect how best that unmet need could be met.
It is noted that the councils are meeting on an on-going basis with their counterparts from other councils and various stakeholders in both the Coventry & Warwickshire
and GBBCHMA to discuss cross-boundary issues. Gladman would encourage these meetings to continue on a regular basis and progress alongside the preparation of the SWLP to maximise the effectiveness of plan-making. If it is concluded that reserve housing sites are required, Gladman would encourage that these sites to be included in the SWLP as housing allocations, rather than relying on such a high windfall allowance.

Other

Representation ID: 100691

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Catesby Estates

Agent: Mr Will Whitelock

We support the recognition that there may be a need to look to accommodate ‘unmet need’ from the Coventry and Warwickshire Housing Market Area (HMA) and the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA. However, there is no detail to comment on at this stage. There will undoubtedly be challenges for neighbouring authorities to meet their own needs and hence the South Warwickshire authorities may well need to increase their housing need figure by reason of the requirement to accommodate any unmet needs.

No

Representation ID: 100702

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Drayton Manor Farms Ltd

Agent: Stansgate Planning

No.
The National Planning Policy Framework states, at paragraph 11b), that strategic policies should
provide for the objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that
cannot be met within neighbouring areas. This need for cross boundary provision is reiterated in
Framework paragraph 36 a). As drafted, Policy Direction 4 does not go far enough towards meeting
the needs of the Greater Birmingham and Coventry areas. Some cross boundary requirements are
already acknowledged yet the SWLP does not currently propose to make any allocations to meet
those needs from the outset and should be amended to do so, reflecting the latest information
available.
That notwithstanding it remains appropriate for the SWLP to allocate additional sites which can be
released if there is a shortfall against the Districts’ own requirements or needs arising from adjacent
areas. A policy of reserve sites must be clearly set out in the SWLP and not left to a separate
document, to be adopted at a later date.

Yes

Representation ID: 100814

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr guy evans

N/A

No

Representation ID: 100845

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Doug Wallace

This smacks of kicking the can from Birmingham/Coventry and the Black Country down the road. Why should Warwickshire solve any problems from these other large urban areas. This risks eating into more green land in Warwickshire. I have lived and worked in both Birmingham and Coventry and there are brownfield areas of both cities which could be re-developed.

No

Representation ID: 100857

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land - Wellesbourne

We are concerned with the lack of detail and the refences within the draft Policy and the HEDNA is out of date.

Yes

Representation ID: 100860

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr guy evans

n/a

Yes

Representation ID: 100868

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Rowington Landowner Consortium

Agent: Knight Frank LLP

SWLP considers the Coventry and Warwickshire HMA and the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA and understands that these authorities will need to assess the overall need over a longer period of time beyond 2031. It is acknowledged that the new standard method led to increases in housing needs in the Black Country with significant evident shortfalls. Whilst it is anticipated that Birmingham City will need to contribute to neighbouring unmet needs, the SWLP will need to provide some contributions in light of the cross-boundary links in relation to a variety of uses including employment, industrial, leisure and housing.

Yes

Representation ID: 100984

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mac Mic Group

Agent: Marrons

It is imperative that the SWLP adequately considers accommodating unmet housing needs arising from outside of South Warwickshire. There are significant unmet needs arising from the GBBCHMA which require attention, and potential unmet needs arising from Coventry which should be taken account of accordingly. There is also potential for unmet needs arising from Cotswold District, Redditch Borough and Solihull Metropolitan Borough which should be considered. Failure to do so would render the SWLP not positively prepared nor effective and thus unsound in line with Paragraph 36 a) and c) of the NPPF.

No

Representation ID: 101100

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr James Wilby

South Warwickshire's appeal is it small towns and expanse of countryside.
People often move out of larger towns and cities for this reason, they don't want to be back living in large urban sprawls.

Other

Representation ID: 101120

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Adrian Summers on behalf of the Summers Family

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

There is a need for greater certainty and quantification on meeting cross-boundary needs. Also, this forgets that some of the requirement might be for employment development, as was verbally indicated by officers during the SWLP Online Event on 29/01/25. The site at Claybank Farm would be capable of accommodating a modest level of employment shortfall.

Yes

Representation ID: 101129

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Hallam Land Management Limited

Agent: Mr Jack Barnes

It is imperative that the SWLP adequately considers accommodating unmet housing needs arising from outside of South Warwickshire. There are significant unmet needs arising from the GBBCHMA which require attention, and potential unmet needs arising from Coventry which should be taken account of accordingly. There is also potential for unmet needs arising from Cotswold District, Redditch Borough and Solihull Metropolitan Borough which should be considered. Failure to do so would render the SWLP not positively prepared nor effective and thus unsound in line with Paragraph 36 a) and c) of the NPPF.

No

Representation ID: 101168

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Culley

no i don't agree

No

Representation ID: 101246

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Bart Slob

I do not fully agree with Draft Policy Direction 4. The plan lacks clarity on how much external housing and employment growth South Warwickshire must accommodate, risking unjustified Green Belt loss, particularly at SG04 (South of Kenilworth). Local infrastructure is already under strain, and this policy does not ensure schools, healthcare, and transport will expand before development. Growth should be based on local needs first, with clear evidence before committing to external demands. Brownfield land must be prioritised, and any additional development should only proceed with firm guarantees on infrastructure and environmental protections.

Yes

Representation ID: 101286

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Hallam Land

Agent: Marrons

It is imperative that the SWLP adequately considers accommodating unmet housing needs arising from outside of South Warwickshire. There are significant unmet needs arising from the GBBCHMA which require attention, and potential unmet needs arising from Coventry which should be taken account of accordingly. There is also potential for unmet needs arising from Cotswold District, Redditch Borough and Solihull Metropolitan Borough which should be considered. Failure to do so would render the SWLP not positively prepared nor effective and thus unsound in line with Paragraph 36 a) and c) of the NPPF.

No

Representation ID: 101306

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ashberry Strategic Land Ltd

Agent: Stansgate Planning

This policy does not go far enough towards meeting the needs of the Greater Birmingham and Coventry Areas and the requirements of NPPF paragraphs 11b) and 36a). There should be allocations to meet those needs included from the outset, based on the latest available information. The SWLP should also allocate additional sites which can be released in case of shortfall against the Districts' own requirements or needs from adjacent areas. This must be set out in the SWLP and not a separate document to be adopted later.

Yes

Representation ID: 101378

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Crump

The need for sustainability of any new development means that where this arises through the inability of a neighbouring local authority to accommodate its objectively assessed housing requirements, then the sites as being identified as most suitable for potential development should be located as close as possible to the neighbouring boundary to minimise the need to travel for incoming residents to the new settlement. It makes no sense, for example to re-locate Birmingham or Black Country incomers on the Gloucestershire borders, given their need to travel to and from work and to service centres and for social purposes.

No

Representation ID: 101433

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ettington Estate Ltd

Agent: Origin3

Although the overall approach is positive, the policy should be brought into line with the revised NPPF published in December 2024, and it should therefore be made clear that any unmet needs to be accommodated through the SWLP will be added to the housing requirement set out in Draft Policy Direction 1.

No

Representation ID: 101442

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bellway Strategic Land / Ashberry Strategic Land

Agent: Marrons

It is imperative that the SWLP adequately considers accommodating unmet housing needs arising from outside of South Warwickshire. There are significant unmet needs arising from the GBBCHMA which require attention, and potential unmet needs arising from Coventry which should be taken account of accordingly. There is also potential for unmet needs arising from Cotswold District, Redditch Borough and Solihull Metropolitan Borough which should be considered. Failure to do so would render the SWLP not positively prepared nor effective and thus unsound in line with Paragraph 36 a) and c) of the NPPF.