Preferred Options 2025
Search representations
Results for Tysoe Parish Council search
New searchNo
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 1 - Meeting South Warwickshire's Sustainable Development Requirements?
Representation ID: 97096
Received: 26/02/2025
Respondent: Tysoe Parish Council
The local development plan assumes population growth and housing need until 2050, driving its policies. It proposes numerous Strategic Growth Locations and Potential New Settlements, which Tysoe Parish Council believe could harm South Warwickshire's rural character. Tysoe’s current protections will remain, but we strongly disagree with the SWLP's housing need assumption, which has increased by 104% compared to the Core Strategy, without credible evidence to justify this. This flawed premise risks considering unsuitable development sites and contradicts environmental goals. I cannot support the plan as presented due to these baseless housing numbers, despite some acceptable policies.
No
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 1 - Meeting South Warwickshire's Sustainable Development Requirements?
Representation ID: 97099
Received: 26/02/2025
Respondent: Tysoe Parish Council
The use of the NSM makes this policy unacceptable.
No
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 2 - Potential New Settlements?
Representation ID: 97101
Received: 26/02/2025
Respondent: Tysoe Parish Council
Many of the Potential New Settlement areas would not be considered if the NSM were not used.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 3- Small Scale Development, Settlement Boundaries and Infill Development?
Representation ID: 97105
Received: 26/02/2025
Respondent: Tysoe Parish Council
Yes
No
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 4- Accommodating Growth Needs Arising from Outside South Warwickshire?
Representation ID: 97108
Received: 26/02/2025
Respondent: Tysoe Parish Council
Our understanding is that much of the "overspill" from Coventry and Birmingham is already incorporated in the NSM.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 5- Infrastructure Requirements and Delivery?
Representation ID: 97109
Received: 26/02/2025
Respondent: Tysoe Parish Council
Yes
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 6- Safeguarding land for transport proposals?
Representation ID: 97113
Received: 26/02/2025
Respondent: Tysoe Parish Council
Yes
No
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 7- Green Belt?
Representation ID: 97114
Received: 26/02/2025
Respondent: Tysoe Parish Council
If more sensible housing requirement assumptions were used Green Belt land would not be required to be considered.
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction-8- Density?
Representation ID: 97119
Received: 26/02/2025
Respondent: Tysoe Parish Council
Yes
Yes
Preferred Options 2025
Do you agree with the approach laid out in Draft Policy Direction 9 - Using Brownfield Land for Development?
Representation ID: 97120
Received: 26/02/2025
Respondent: Tysoe Parish Council
Yes
