Yes

Representation ID: 93709

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr John Archer

Tes because the infrastructure is often in place. However, I guess these sites are more expensive to make suitable for housing as they need to be de-contaminated which may bias the decisions to Greeen Field..

Yes

Representation ID: 93730

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr George Power

Absolutely, brown belt land should be always be considered before green belt. Destruction of local landscape and wildlife while suitable industrial wasteland is available is not acceptable.

Yes

Representation ID: 93794

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Warwick District Green Party

-This local plan needs to very strongly promote use of urban brownfield land.
-There must be a commitment to focusing on building affordable housing in the cities and towns where the housing is needed and infrastructure exists.
-This approach aligns with the government’s decision to delete paragraph 130 of the NPPF, reflecting a policy shift towards prioritizing land efficiency and housing supply over strict adherence to existing local character considerations.

Other

Representation ID: 93801

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Zbigniew Franczuk

Brownfield land should always be built on first and urban sprawl should be avoided untill ALL brownfield land is built on

No

Representation ID: 93910

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carina Taylor

Brownfield land should be used to develop new job opportunities, encouraging new companies to invest in the area.

Yes

Representation ID: 93984

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sue Scurrah

-

Yes

Representation ID: 94053

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Stuart Mace

There is a glut of brownfield land now, and as habits change also in the future. Retail space is becoming increasingly redundant due to changes in consumer habits. Office spaces are now very different from the 1970s and 1980s when those buildings were first built, and indeed those buildings are of poor design and poor quality.

No

Representation ID: 94087

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Samantha Stafford Scott

The green belt should always be protected for development and especially where there are brownfield sites readily available.

Yes

Representation ID: 94111

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Kelly

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

Other

Representation ID: 94249

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Andrew Close

I'm not clear on 'Spatial Growth Strategy priority areas 1-3' within this policy and how it relates to the 24+12 strategic sites? Does SWLP need a policy for brownfield given national requirements to reuse such land for development first. To help with the intent behind policy direction 9, do you have a sense of the amount of land to be utilised and housing it could deliver? Density within town centres should be increased, however to note the new Grey Belt criteria for 'previously developed land' aka brownfield, which could mean locations that are less sustainable may be earmarked by developers.

Yes

Representation ID: 94330

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Waters

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 94392

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Alan Blandamer

Brownfield land should always be used for development over green belt land as set out in the policy for the importance of protecting against the loss of open landscape and preventing urban sprawl.

Yes

Representation ID: 94393

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: James Springate

Brown Field MUST be considered for development before destroying countryside areas.

Yes

Representation ID: 94486

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Isabel Collins

brownfield should always be used over greenbelt to protect the land

Yes

Representation ID: 94502

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Clement Silverman

I would like to see greater funding and support of brownfield development, particularly where sites may be more 'difficult' to develop over greenfield. e.g. Developers could be put off by having to clear derelict buildings or work within constraints, and therefore extra intensives may be needed to realise the benefits.

Yes

Representation ID: 94514

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carol Clark

Using Brownfield Land first is preferable to using Green Belt or other open areas.

Yes

Representation ID: 94572

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon Town Centre Strategic Partnership

N/A

No

Representation ID: 94676

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Gala McBride

B1 land in Hatton
All 3 recent huge housing developments affecting the A4117 and the vicinity have been on virgin greenfield sites. Part of the proposed development is a conservation area and it is all Green Belt. Please please find brownfield sites instead. We need open country, woods and wildlife to combat climate change - we have lost so much green land in this area already. We need the biodiversity of our green land to sustain health and happiness. For example, on our precious canal and its surroundings, we have otters, kingfishers, water voles, cormorants, herons and many deer.

Yes

Representation ID: 94688

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Dunster

It make far more sense to me to use ALL 'Brownfield' sites until they are fully utilised and only then consider other sites.

Yes

Representation ID: 94758

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Jackson

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 94796

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Kineton Parish Council

no further comment

Yes

Representation ID: 94835

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford-upon-Avon Town Transport Group

Yes

Yes

Representation ID: 94922

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Ainsworth

Brownfield land shou;d always be used before Greenbelt land. As council policies to pretect from urban sprawl and the loss of open landscape wherever possible.

Yes

Representation ID: 94964

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Tracey Grimes

I have no objection to brownfield sites being re-developed as long as green belt sites are left as green belt, and in addition there would generally have been infrastructure in place for a brownfield site, rather than having to create a whole new infrastructure on green belt.

Yes

Representation ID: 95022

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Alice Taylor

We strongly agree with this approach. Brownfield sites should always be prioritised for development.

Yes

Representation ID: 95209

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Edward Wilson

Brownfield sites are far preferable.

Yes

Representation ID: 95281

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Lee Tallen

It feels obvious that use of brownfield land should be prioritized. once you bulldoze countryside unnecessarily then obviously it is gone forever.

Yes

Representation ID: 95358

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Guy Vellacott

Brownfield sites should be used ahead of destroying arable land

Yes

Representation ID: 95448

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Barrie Goodman

Brownfield sites should always be used for development in preference to Green belt land

Yes

Representation ID: 95518

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Dave Maxted

Brown field sites should be developed before considering any building on green belt land.