No

Representation ID: 94682

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Renny Wodynska

Losing any precious green belt is 100 percent NOT acceptable, there would be irreversible loss of openness, introducing urban sprawl into an areas which provide at least some sanctuary for the few species/ limited wildlife we haven't killed off already. . The physical and visual intrusion of masssive acres of new development will damage our area FOR EVER. Once land is built on you will never restore it back to forest,woodland or open green space.
As I've quoted elsewhere green spaces hence green belt is vital to the mental health of the population.
Encroaching on any green belt is unaaceptable.

No

Representation ID: 94754

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Jackson

Green belt is important for identifying hamlets and villages. People need to have the opportunity to walk within the green belt area.

Yes

Representation ID: 94793

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Kineton Parish Council

no further comment

Yes

Representation ID: 94832

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford-upon-Avon Town Transport Group

Yes

No

Representation ID: 94840

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kerry Cullinane

This policy is lacking clarity and is vague on new grey belt definition. It only presents the first stage of the review for green belt. The policy opposes green belt development unless exceptional circumstances are proven. Emphasising the green belt's importance in limiting sprawl especially between Coventry and Kenilworth, and Kenilworth and Leek Wootton.
Weakening green belt protections is a short sighted solution to the housing crisis and leads to high value homes instead of affordable housing. The focus should shift to sustainable urban planning like regenerating brownfield sites and building higher density housing near existing infrastructure

No

Representation ID: 94858

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sandra Garrad

Greenbelt land should be protected. especially in relation to the area adjacent to the Welcombe Hills, to preserve the natural beauty of the area.

No

Representation ID: 94917

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Ainsworth

No - green belt should not be considered when there is brownfield land available which there is in stratford. GReenbelt should be look after to prevent urban sprawl. New settlments are better to meet large targets and quotas to minimise traffic ongestion .

The CLopton QUARTER part of SG18 next to the Welcombe Holls should be presvered permanently to meet Soith Warwickshire 'OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES' of a 'beautiful south warwickshire'.

No

Representation ID: 94948

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Tracey Grimes

I do not agree with the proposal to build on green belt land.
Green belt land was designated as such to protect the urban sprawl taking up valued areas of country side, which help generate natural events like pollination, which unfortunately is in a steady decline due to similar negative planning decisions.

No

Representation ID: 94952

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Charles Palmer

I believe the focus on sustainability loses sight of the issue of exceptionality when considering green field sites. I also believe your sustainability appraisal is techinically floored. By ranking sites, you only establish relative sustainability, not an absolute measure of whether a site is sustainable. Just because a site is more sustainable than another does not make that site a sustainable option itself. The latter requires that an absolute threshold of sustainability is demonstrated. Your plan does not do this.

No

Representation ID: 94999

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Palmer

We have already lost too much greenbelt along the north of kenilworth where the HS2 is being built, although it was not mentioned in the report. The loss of species, trees and biodiversity is huge which makes the remaining green belt even more valuable .

No

Representation ID: 95006

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ben Davis

Green belt land was originally designated for the reasons the policy outlines but every time a new local plan is produced vast swathes of green belt land are simply removed to enable development. This is clearly not sustainable. The green belt policy should be to protect it unless there really are exceptional circumstances.

No

Representation ID: 95019

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Alice Taylor

The whole purpose of the green belt is to prevent urban sprawl from our towns, preserve our countryside and the character of historic towns such as Stratford-upon-Avon that is so dependant on tourism due to its charm. Therefore, we should not be considering building whole new towns within the current green belt locations so close to Stratford, it will both harm our districts countryside appeal as well as detract from Stratfords tourist attraction.

No

Representation ID: 95049

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Chris Maltby

Releasing green belt land should only be considered once there are no suitable sites located outside of the green belt available for development. Even then sites that are clearly and robustly demonstrated as being 'grey belt' should come forward first and then finally the Council should consider limited release of green belt land where it has the least impact on the fundamental objectives of green belt policy as set out in the NPPF.

No

Representation ID: 95059

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr T Finerty

It has been incorrectly applied to site B1.
Green belt should prevent "urban sprawl" and significant dwellings merging into each other. It is clear that site B1 will help encourage Hatton and Warwick to merge

No

Representation ID: 95086

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lynette Sutton

Green belt land should be protected. There is a real danger that developments will become joined and urban sprawl of Warwick/leaminton /kenilworth will become one huge housing estate.

No

Representation ID: 95088

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Robert Clarke

The green belt is an important tool in minimising the increasing urbanisation of the regions, and maintaining rural land masses.
Any relaxation in the application of green belt planning policies is very concerning, as once a precedent has been set it will enable large scale property development on previously rural sites to occur. It is vital to ensure that rural separation between large residential areas is maintained, and that the separation is of a meaningful and effective distance.

No

Representation ID: 95115

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anna Finerty

It has been incorrectly applied to site B1. Building on green belt will reduce the beauty around the Hatton Area. People will be less likely to go for walks, which will have a negative impact on health

No

Representation ID: 95144

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Susan Frawley

Too much Green Belt land is being lost already.

No

Representation ID: 95274

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Lee Tallen

Despite the rhetoric in the draft policy, the importance of the green belt appears to have been disregarded. Two major tenets that the proposals ignore. 1) Greenbelt should be used to check the unrestricted sprawl of large build up areas. The draft proposals are instead looking to encourage urban sprawl. 2) Green belt should be used to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. Again, concrete-ing over clopton quarter goes totally against this. Based on just these two issues it is confusing why green belt is considered as 'preferred' when there appears to be so much brownfield availability.

No

Representation ID: 95328

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Douglas Warne

As a result of green belt protection over the years, development has concentrated in the area south of Warwick and Leamington. The opportunity to redress this imbalance by prioritising development in the north appears to have been missed in the SWLP policy and is not reflected in the preferred site selection.

Other

Representation ID: 95414

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Wynford Grant

I appreciate the need to pay attention to national policy. However, I think that the land to the north of Leamington towards Old Milverton village is valued as a 'green lung' and the network of footpaths is much used.

No

Representation ID: 95443

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Barrie Goodman

Green Belt should not be developed when more suitable Brown Field sites are available. The Clopton area in SG18 should be safeguarded from any future development to ensure Wildlife conservation and a Biodiverse environment is maintained.

No

Representation ID: 95515

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Dave Maxted

I find it difficult to accept that building on designated green belt land in agricultural use is being considered, when there are other brown field sites and infill sites to develop.
Kenilworth is a town in a rural setting, and will not benefit from being merged with Coventry, Leek Wootton or any other centre of population.
Schools, car parks and GP surgeries are full or overwhelmed at current population levels without adding to this.

Yes

Representation ID: 95593

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Stoford Developments Ltd

We agree with the approach that further work is required to explore Green Belt release. however the policy refers to releasing land from the Green Belt only in the case of meeting South Warks needs - and not meeting the needs of adjacent LPAs such as Redditch/Bromsgrove. This should be clarified. In addition, given the longer timeframe of this Plan, which we support), the opportunity to identify Safeguarded Land for the future is welcomed and should be a part of a later iteration.

Other

Representation ID: 95595

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr James Davis

Green belt land should not be built on when brownfield land is available. New settlements are preferable as they will meet the quota of houses and prevent a strain on existing infrastructure. The Clopton Quarter should not be used for development. It is next to the Welcome Hills and development would have a detrimental impact on wildlife and spoil the enjoyment for people as it would no longer be rural.

No

Representation ID: 95637

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Clare Shales

Large villages retain their village 'feel' with a green belt restriction. If this is removed, they will lose their rural & beautiful quintessentially English nature.
Alongside this the loss of important land even if infill, that houses biodiverse and important species.

No

Representation ID: 95685

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Clarke

Green belt policy has served the nation well for many years and the Government/ local authorities should not be re-writing the rules to justify development where the original principles would not have allowed it

Other

Representation ID: 95830

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Carter

There is capacity within the Green Belt to accommodate more development without compromising the fundamental purpose of the Green Belt.

No

Representation ID: 95838

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr UDAYA EEDUPUGANTI

Green belt should be safeguarded to prevent urban sprawl and preserve the natural environment.
Any development should prioritize Brownfield land before considering any encroachment on Green Belt areas.

Other

Representation ID: 95907

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Tesh

If Green Belt is used for development is it possible to have a policy that seeks to replace the area used elsewhere in South Warwickshire, for example extending the existing non affected Green Belt, creating a new Green Belt or extending the Cotswold National Landscape?