Yes

Representation ID: 90166

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Maria Giblin

Brown land should be used and always be considered first.

Yes

Representation ID: 90191

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Christopher Hind

This should always be the first option and is significantly preferable to impinging on green belt land

Other

Representation ID: 90215

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Williams

Brownfield sites should always be considered first & developed before any greenfield site are even considered.

Yes

Representation ID: 90237

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Dean Giblin

As outlined in policy, brownfield land should always be prioritized for development over green belt land to protect against urban sprawl and preserve open landscapes.

Yes

Representation ID: 90266

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Edwards

If WDC is prepared to declare its unused offices and properties as brownfield, given that they are unable to get their employees to work there anymore, then I agree. This would provide good prime regeneration opportunities and save on the maintainence and running of under-utilised real estate.
If not, they should recover the costs from employees or make them go to work.

No

Representation ID: 90366

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Sankey

No leave it alone for future generations to enjoy

Yes

Representation ID: 90437

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sheetal Tailor

Brownfield land should always be used in preference over greenbelt as set out in the policy for the importance of protecting from urban sprawl and loss of open landscape.

No

Representation ID: 90478

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Jayne Jones

I agree that brownfield sites should be first priority. No evidence of rigorous approach to this.

Yes

Representation ID: 90518

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Jason Lupton

This should be targeted to preserve and protect greenbelt land.
This land is typically within urban environments and would have a lower impact on urban sprawl.

Yes

Representation ID: 90548

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Gavin Simpson

Brownfield must always be developed before and in preference to destroying green belt areas and wild life habitats.

Yes

Representation ID: 90727

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Tim Goodwin

Brownfield land should always be used in preference to greenbelt and other sites. They have the least impact upon the environment and local wildlife. The need for greenbelts remains the same as when they were first introduced. They are vital to limit unnecessary and unwanted urban spread. It is the Council’s duty in support of South Warwickshire’s ‘overarching principles’ of “a beautiful South Warwickshire” & “a biodiverse and environmentally resilient South Warwickshire,” to permanently safeguarded against development in the greenbelt Clopton Quarter part of SG18 next to the beautiful Welcombe Hills

Other

Representation ID: 90815

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Teresa Franczuk

Brownfields should be Always concidered first for any developments, not just factories.
All green areas should be protected.

Yes

Representation ID: 90816

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Maxine Mayer

I do agree with the approach BUT why has this never been achieved historically and how will this policy be achieved?

Yes

Representation ID: 90833

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Malcolm Fisk

I agree that brownfield sites should always be considered before anything else and that their location should in-part dictate it's potential use. Other factors such as DPD8 should also drive decisions on use to form a more cohesive Town plan approach where sites are within urban areas.

Outside urban areas I believe new settlements should be the focus, with a long term view as to what the mix of uses are for the site i.e. what is a 21st Century 20 minute neighbourhood?

Yes

Representation ID: 90862

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr James Morris

Brownfield land should always be prioritised for development over green belt land, as outlined in the policy emphasising the significance of preserving against urban sprawl and the loss of open landscapes.

Yes

Representation ID: 90871

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Emma Barber

I believe that brownfield land should always be the first choice for development, especially over greenbelt land. This would protect us from urban sprawl and the loss of important and integral open landscape.

Other

Representation ID: 90923

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Lawrence Mukumbira

For the importance of protecting green belt land, brown filed land should always be used to develop new housing communities as set out in the policy

Yes

Representation ID: 91149

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs liz jackson

priority should be given to town centres where retail sites go derelict - consideration should be given to reinvigorating town centres, providing cultural/residential/social centres

No

Representation ID: 91158

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Janet Johnson

There are quite a few of these sites across both districts many of which have been there for some years so why are they STILL THERE?

Yes

Representation ID: 91242

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Norman

Sensible

Yes

Representation ID: 91243

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Mr David Haggarty

Green belt must be protected and a last resort for development

Yes

Representation ID: 91305

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Stuart Taylor

Brownfield land must always be prioritized over Green Belt for development to prevent urban sprawl and protect open landscapes. National and local policies emphasize safeguarding Green Belt areas, ensuring they remain undeveloped to preserve natural beauty and biodiversity. Brownfield sites offer a sustainable solution, repurposing previously developed land while reducing the impact on countryside and wildlife. By focusing on brownfield regeneration, housing targets can be met without sacrificing vital green spaces. Strategic planning should support urban renewal over encroachment on protected landscapes, maintaining South Warwickshire’s character and ensuring responsible, environmentally conscious development for future generations.

Yes

Representation ID: 91313

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Joanne Dixon

Developing "brownfield" land should ABSOLUTELY be the first course of action before EVER considering the development of greenbelt land, which would cause a devastating impact on wildlife and ecology. The proposed development of 6,700 houses next to Wilmcote, Bearley and Pathlow would be a disaster for this precious greenbelt countyside, which is close to historical landmarks and close-knit, small and safe communities. It cannot be allowed to happen when there are viable brownfield alternatives. It's unthinkable and reckless.

Yes

Representation ID: 91321

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Helena Flisowski

Any land that can be used for food production should be protected in regards to supporting food production , this with the backdrop of Britains vulnerability in food sustainability

Yes

Representation ID: 91328

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Bev Atkinson

Land at The Greens, South of Alcester Road, Stratford upon Avon (492) and South of Alcester Road, Stratford-upon-Avon. (827)

I agree with a robust brownfield-first policy. This provides greater protection to greenfield sites like 492/827. It is imperative to preserve and protect greenfield sites.

There are many appropriate and available brownfield sites in Stratford upon Avon and I strongly urge that full use of suitable brownfield land will be complied with before development is considered in other locations.

Yes

Representation ID: 91349

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Giles Dugmore

Site 492 Land at The Greens, South of Alcester Road, SuA, and site 827 South of Alcester Road, SuA: This green field should remain as a haven of biodiversity and not be developed whilst there is ample supply of undeveloped brownfield sites in Stratford. These sites have had viable buildings removed and then left as eyesores for the public and visitors. It is a crime that a greed field would be developed, eradicating wildlife, whilst barren brownfield sites lie undeveloped and without planning applications.

Other

Representation ID: 91413

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Julian Brown

Agree in principle but i refer to my comments made in Draft Policy 7

Yes

Representation ID: 91509

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Donna Goodwin

Brownfield land has the least impact upon the environment and local wildlife and should always be used in preference to greenbelt and other sites. The need for greenbelts remains unchanged from when they were first introduced and are a vital to limit unnecessary, unwanted urban spread. It is the Council’s duty in support of South Warwickshire’s ‘overarching principles’ of “a beautiful South Warwickshire” & “a biodiverse and environmentally resilient South Warwickshire,” to permanently safeguarded against development in the greenbelt Clopton Quarter part of SG18 next to the beautiful Welcombe Hills

Yes

Representation ID: 91667

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Duncombe

This is where most development should happen, as these are usually well served by existing infrastructure.

Yes

Representation ID: 91698

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Taylor

I agree