Yes

Representation ID: 101841

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Clive Henderson

This partly supports my concerns as stated on Policy 7 but is needs to stress that it applies dynamically and in real time in order to minimise any impact on precious Green Belt land

Yes

Representation ID: 101846

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Walkden

Brownfield sites should be optimised to reduce the impact on the green belt and the loss of the biodiverse ecology

Yes

Representation ID: 101872

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Anne Page

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 101921

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Anne Page

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 101955

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

The NPPF (Paragraph 119) prioritises the effective use of land, particularly previously developed (brownfield) land, to meet housing and economic needs. The SWLP should reconsider urban brownfield sites that were discounted through blanket policies, such as single-use car parks for offices, to maximise land reuse. Paragraph 120 encourages local policies that promote and support the redevelopment of underutilised brownfield sites, particularly in sustainable locations like Warwick and Leamington. A more flexible approach could unlock additional land for development, reducing pressure on greenfield sites and supporting sustainable urban growth.

Other

Representation ID: 102013

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Joseph Dimambro-Denson

As long as it's in a suitable location for it's proposed use. Eg housing in villages and town centres or ex industrial town areas.

Yes

Representation ID: 102020

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Dave Steele

Yes - brownfield sites should be used first

Yes

Representation ID: 102144

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Doug Wallace

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 102162

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Sue Cole

Use of all available brownfield land is sensible.

Yes

Representation ID: 102184

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Hallam Land

Agent: LRM Planning

We agree that the re-use of suitable urban brownfield land should be prioritised in the first instance. That is consistent with national planning policy. However, it is widely understood that present and future development needs cannot be met only on such sites. The identification of greenfield land is therefore an entirely legitimate and essential proposition for this Local Plan.

Yes

Representation ID: 102235

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Edward Lunt

Agree

Yes

Representation ID: 102236

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Jennie Lunt

Agreed with using brownfield sites as much as possible

No

Representation ID: 102237

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: The Trustees of the Cubbington Freeholders Charity (CFC)

Agent: Mr Will Whitelock

The re-use and redevelopment of suitable previously developed sites such as land off Leicester Lane, Cubbington should be positively encouraged as part of the Spatial Growth Strategy - for the obvious reason that reusing vacant or derelict land and buildings reduces the need to build on greenfield land, which is a finite resource and often of higher quality in terms of landscape and biodiversity.

Yes

Representation ID: 102293

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Holly Chenu

Brownfield sites should be used as necessary until fully exhausted before considering green belt site.

Yes

Representation ID: 102552

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Carl Barthorpe

Yes use brownfield, old airfields, build higher in large town centres and cities. Lots of brownfield land not being used effectively (e.g. Royal Priors is almost abandoned by shop tenants, should be demolished and replaced with high rise flats)

Yes

Representation ID: 102592

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Penelope Beswick

Brownfield land should be prioritised for re-use as it already by default has infrastructure to support it. Central Government should be supporting this nationwide in the form of Government loans or grants to help to prevent the urbanisation of swathes of virgin countryside on the outskirts of towns where new infrastructure would be required.

Yes

Representation ID: 102677

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Matthew Newson

I broadly support Draft Policy Direction 9 and its emphasis on prioritising urban brownfield land for development. This approach aligns with sustainability goals, reduces pressure on greenfield sites, and supports urban regeneration. However, I urge caution where brownfield land outside urban areas is considered, as this must not undermine the protection of rural character, Green Belt purposes, or infrastructure capacity, as highlighted in my previous responses. Brownfield development should not justify unsustainable locations or over-development in rural areas. A clear, evidence-based assessment of sustainability and infrastructure capacity must guide decisions to ensure alignment with the council’s strategic objectives.

Other

Representation ID: 102738

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Phoebe Withnall

DPD9 rightly prioritises urban brownfield land for development, but this commitment must not become empty words. Supposed viability concerns are always used to justify bypassing brownfield sites in favour of more profitable greenfield development. This is not in the interests of local communities—it only benefits developers. If remediation costs exist, support or incentives should be considered—greenfield must not be treated as the default simply because it is the easiest and most lucrative option for those seeking to maximise profit at the community’s expense.

Yes

Representation ID: 103180

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Peter Emmerson

As stated elsewhere, I believe that brown field land shoud always be considered before the use of greenfield sites whether outside or within the Green Belt. Where brown field land has been considered and found to be unsuitable for development, its use for other purposes should be proactively pursued.

Yes

Representation ID: 103200

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Chesterton and Kingston Parish Meeting

Brown field must be prioritised

Yes

Representation ID: 103263

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jenny Stevens

Must always be used first-protect our green places please

Yes

Representation ID: 103363

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Norrie

This policy sounds completely reasonable.

Yes

Representation ID: 103447

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Christine Easton

Hurrah one that I totally agree with

Yes

Representation ID: 103456

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Laura Turner

I agree with Brownfield land being used for housing - where it used close to necessary facilities/road and rail links and the impact on surrounding villages is minimal

Yes

Representation ID: 103487

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs S Farmer

YES, I agree with the approach of Draft Policy Direction 9.

Urban regeneration is vital.

At the moment, Stratford-upon-Avon looks like a decaying town. There are many derelict and unused buildings. This is a tragedy for the home of Shakespeare, a tourist attraction that has seen better days.

Of course, brownfield should be prioritised over greenfield land. But go one step further and put massive resources into expediting the recycling of urban land to breathe some life into the town and make it attractive to prospective businesses.

Other

Representation ID: 103503

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Neal Appleton

Broadly agree. However, a distinction should be made between urban and rural brownfield. Redevelopment of a brownfield site should prioritise proposals that are a similar use. Nearby transport networks are also a factor.

Yes

Representation ID: 103661

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Philip Wall

must prioritise development of brownfield sites over all other sites.

Yes

Representation ID: 103735

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Jennifer McALLISTER

I agree that brownfield land should be used as a priority for development.

Yes

Representation ID: 103753

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Carter

By prioritising sustainable, non-Green Belt sites, housing can be delivered responsibly—without destroying the countryside, harming biodiversity, or overwhelming local services.

Yes

Representation ID: 103805

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Margaret Halligan

Agree