Yes

Representation ID: 87773

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Samuel Sharples

If SG05 & SG06 are given the green light then Cubbington & Lillington will become much worse places to live. The infrastructure and roads will not be able to cope, we will lose valuable greenbelt and agricultural land, and the areas would be so busy that we would sell our house and move elsewhere

No

Representation ID: 87780

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Katarzyna Wielis

If SG05 & SG06 are given the green light then Cubbington & Lillington will become much worse places to live. The infrastructure and roads will not be able to cope, we will lose valuable greenbelt and agricultural land, and the areas would be so busy that we would sell our house and move elsewhere

Yes

Representation ID: 87800

Received: 11/02/2025

Respondent: Helen Stone-Johnston

SG05. Routinely see bats using as a flight path, there are newts, hedgerows full of sparrows - all protected species identified by Warks itself. This is green belt - need to value and protect this for it's many benefits. Contains many old oak trees across all fields. People daily walk on the public footpaths, free exercise&benefits for both physical&mental health on edge of an estate, with lots of social deprivation/mixed demographics. Value and boost this, dont lose it. We have one road in/out of Leamington that already gets very congested with access to retail/supermarkets - all in South Leam.

Yes

Representation ID: 87821

Received: 11/02/2025

Respondent: Davinder Liddar

Land at Ardens Grafton and Temple Grafton (Refid 16).
Ardens Grafton and Temple Grafton are non service villages and do not have the infrastructure in place to cope with any large developments.
1. Road infrastructure could not handle increased volume of traffic.
2. No mains sewage or water drainage system in place.
3. No regular bus service, which would increase traffic on the limited road infrastructure.
4. Land is currently used as farm land growing crops, if developed for housing would affect food supply.

Yes

Representation ID: 87838

Received: 11/02/2025

Respondent: Mr jonathan billington

land to the north of captains hill, Alcester. ref 474
this site is unsuitable for development because it is in the green belt and because of the topography. It forms part of a ridge overlooking Alcester (it has a Trig point at the highest point) and houses on it would impact adversely on the landscape. At the part nearest the road there is a large pond which overflows and floods in the winter, so building on it would increase the flooding run-off.

Other

Representation ID: 87845

Received: 06/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs vivien bryer

I object to using GS06 for housing due to its ecological value. The Arup document inaccurately assesses the area north of the A445, relying on outdated data. The fields have been cultivated with wildflowers, providing vital habitats for various species. The fields should be classified as land with significant natural vegetation, supporting diverse wildlife. Additionally, the visual appeal contributes to tourism and local well-being. I urge prioritisation of food security, as this Grade 3a land has been well-maintained and cannot be easily replaced. I hope you will honour the goal of protecting 30% of land for wildlife by 2030.

Yes

Representation ID: 87888

Received: 12/02/2025

Respondent: Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council

There are two sites listed in the HELAA Results in Sherbourne, REFID 196 & 201 which do not meet the sustainable development criteria. There is no infrastructure in Sherbourne, no school / shops etc - not even footpaths. Current residents already run the gauntlet of inconsiderate drivers not taking any notice of people walking in the lanes. All facilities involve crossing the A429 or even worse the M40 at J15 to get to Warwick. For any houses built on sites 196 and 201 the residents will have to use cars to access everything. Definitely not sustainable.

Yes

Representation ID: 87940

Received: 12/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Luis Snell

My family and friends live in bishops itchington and have all our lives. We have seen the village grow and grow and it was much getting used to but the community got bigger. Only it was over time, the young characters came out and stormed the villages at night threatening pensioners. Houses where getting spray painted, nature suffered. The F2 building plan is horrendous. the amount of wasteland around us and you choose deep into the country side ‘connecting villages’. This is going to be awful for many years. our village can’t take it. pipes, nature, roads, countryside, hope gone.

Yes

Representation ID: 87951

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Miss jazmin Holtom

.

Yes

Representation ID: 87961

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Cameron Tolley

Stop trying to turn a village into a town, developers won’t be able to sell the houses like every other site locally where half the new builds are empty

Yes

Representation ID: 87970

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Jade Mannix

I live in Sandy way, Barford. We do not need any more houses!! It’s ruining our beautiful village

Yes

Representation ID: 88023

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Quantrill

re site BW. Wholly inappropriate site as green belt, will substantially change/desimate the rural character of the area (20 times larger than Bearley), eventually this new town will link up with Stratford (urban sprawl), very limited train services (upgrades required unrealistic given cost), no nearby facilities, will cause A34/Snitterfield Road/Snitterfield congestion/noise pollution, worst performing site for biodiversity, ranked 8th for sustainability, landscape harm, impact on local ancient woodland (incorrectly given a green rating), no facilities in Stratford for youngsters

BW only shortlisted as large landowners willing to sell and that is no reason to make such an impactful decision!

Yes

Representation ID: 88024

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sharon Quantrill

Re: site BW, site is green belt, will substantially change/dessimate the rural character of the area (20 times larger than existing village Bearley) eventually this new town will link up with Stratford (urban sprawl), very limited train services (upgrades required unrealistic given cost), bus service minimal, A34/A46 road at capacity (given an amber in report for transport but shown as green), very high biodiversity inc ancient woodland which we will lose, ranked 8th for sustainability, seems only ranked as preferential due to landowner wanting to sell land. Greenbelt should not even be considered due to amount of urban areas available.

No

Representation ID: 88053

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Robert Maxwell

The continued expansion of a small village is unacceptable, unnecessary and will continue to ruin this country's history and appearance.

No

Representation ID: 88086

Received: 03/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Jane Neary

Traffiic and pollution, decent farming land, green belt.
risk of flooding no infrastructure in place . Hospital will never cope.
Schools ?
Crime will potentially increase.
Wildlife affected we are a hedgehog release site.
Mental health will be affected. No green spaces to walk.
Traffic build up, pollution, risk of crime, risk of flooding,
no infrastructure in place,
mental health
wildlife will be destroyed.
I respectfully request that planners and councillors refuse the allocation proposal for
the site(s) referenced, based on the reasons provided.

No

Representation ID: 88159

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Matthew Kennerley

Proposed site 172 is on valuable farming land, since Britain decided to leave the EU we should be focused on supporting local farmers to supply crops and livestock for our consumption instead of paying import charges and creating non sustainable transportation emissions. The village of Barford has limited resource space for amenities to provide for further housing. The roads struggle to cope with extra traffic as it is currently. Barford primary school is fully subscribed and has already been extended to fulfill the recent extra housing. The land in question regularly floods, building concrete foundations will inevitably cause more flooding

Other

Representation ID: 88194

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kate Trimble

Access along Church Lane to the proposed 80 house development is single lane and could not possibly cope with the increase in traffic from such a residential development. In addition it is not suitable access for the lorries and deliveries needed to support such a build.
The increase in traffic would also pose a risk to young children given church lane is the key access point to the park in the village.

Yes

Representation ID: 88265

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ida Marjorie Brown

SG23 - Green belt, poor site location and poor transport links. Should protect Historic Towns. Henley been poorly developed with in-town infilling and has poor parking facilities and limited access roads in and out. I am not against developing Henley, but we should be seeking to build small developments in the numerous hamlets around Henley and preserve its beauty and heritage, e.g. Buckley Green, the former Garden Centre (north of Henley and brownfield site!!!) plus additions in Claverdon, Ullenhall and Wootton Wawen . Business Hubs should be located near to accessible motorways (Blythe Valley example) and not Henley.

Other

Representation ID: 88310

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Neil Parker

Thanks

Yes

Representation ID: 88317

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Smith

Loes Farm Site 93. This site risks extending residential construction into green belt areas. The assessment shows Amber warnings for green belt, registered park and garden, listed building, scheduled monuments and brown/green field sites making it a sub-optimal housing development. This stretch of land could be developed as country park, or biodiversity improvement area to link with ecologically rich river corridor close by and heritage location of Guy's Cliffe House, Guys Cliffe Walled Garden and the Saxon Mill. Limited housing could be provided at the farm. On the whole there are better sites that tick more of the necessary boxes.

Yes

Representation ID: 88319

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Smith

Warwick Road Leek Wootton, 229, 2, 603 and 116. Good small scale locations for limited development that will not affect the character of the village.

Yes

Representation ID: 88320

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Smith

Hampton Road 44. Good Location to develop ecologically poor areas with good infrastructure links for business and housing.

Yes

Representation ID: 88321

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Smith

Idex 873 - Excellent Brownfield site for housing.

Yes

Representation ID: 88322

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Smith

Brookside 212 - Development here presents concerns off impact upon New Waters close by and Warwick Castle Park

Yes

Representation ID: 88324

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Smith

MPS 876. Excellent brownfield site for housing especially affordable housing, in keeping with exsiting developments in this area.

Yes

Representation ID: 88325

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Smith

Goggbridge 84 good location of additional housing

Yes

Representation ID: 88519

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Julie Hudson

I frequently visit Shipston (SG17). I have two comments that are likely to apply elsewhere. 1. Local infrastructure is often described by residents as weak due to underinvestment. Weak existing infrastructure should be a reason to stop all new site selection until it’s fixed. 2. Developers allegedly have a track record of not finishing off new builds or estates. Any such under-performng firms must be blocked from submitting land for new development. Delivery of this plan as intended will rest on good execution. Underperforming sewage systems, flooded homes and streets, potholed roads, and unfinished projects will undermine SWLP.

No

Representation ID: 88520

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Grey

This is prime farmland and the village has already had significant infill development in recent years.

Yes

Representation ID: 88600

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ida Marjorie Brown

I have made individual comments to each specific Strategic location previously.

No

Representation ID: 88673

Received: 01/02/2025

Respondent: Farirai Madondo

I am a resident of Hatton Park and I formally object to the proposed development at Wedgnock Park Farm. I am concerned about the increased demand on already overcrowded public transport services and the lack of infrastructure to support the development. Without new bus routes or increased service frequency, residents may rely on private vehicles, leading to traffic congestion and higher carbon emissions. Additionally, the site's distance from public transport options could isolate the community. I urge the planning committee to reconsider this proposal due to these significant concerns. Thank you for your attention.