Yes

Representation ID: 94763

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Clarke

Makes sense to locate in an area where existing development has already impacted upon the rural nature of land in the area.

No

Representation ID: 94970

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Rawlings

This is inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

No

Representation ID: 95406

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs R Douce

I note that the route of HS2 is not on the interactive map. The impact of noise pollution from the operation HS2 line makes this area unsuitable for residential development. We need to be committed to building desirable homes where people want to be.

Yes

Representation ID: 95411

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Molloy

Land has already been built upon and near HS2. This area is not Green Belt despite being in the Green Belt area.

Yes

Representation ID: 95501

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Dave Maxted

I believe this is a more suitable site than those in designated green belt

Yes

Representation ID: 95953

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Nixon

Although technically green belt, SG02 already has significant commercial development (NAC etc). It's further development would support the employment needs of housing additions of Coventry (inc. Kings Hill) and current east Kenilworth development to ensure sustainability.

Yes

Representation ID: 96025

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Chilton

Excellent transport options

Other

Representation ID: 96741

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Alcester Town Council

Alcester Town Council, Arrow with Weethley Parish Council, Kinwarton Parish Council, Wixford Parish Council and Great Alne Parish Council (together referred to as Alcester Parishes Group or ‘APG’) has no comment.

Yes

Representation ID: 96952

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Jeffery

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 97214

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: John Dinnie

Provides employment

Other

Representation ID: 97515

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Jill Andrews

SG01 SG02 And SG03 should combine to be a new settlement as there is potential for jobs and link to motorway and train stations, but need the additional infrastructure to go with this eg schools, doctors etc. Use of other 'infill' areas is just fudging the issue and detrimental to roads and facilities already at breaking point and beyond capacity - eg poor Clopton Bridge.

No

Representation ID: 97586

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Anna Avino

Leamington has already exploded in the past five years. The roads are jammed, the services are overstretched and the vast housing developements and population explosion is changimg the character of the area and making it unpleasant. Infrastructure cannot cope with all the new 29,000 homes being concentrated in a few massive developments in the area particularly south Leamington and Whitnash which is gridlocked. These houses need to be fully dispersed across the whole of warwickshire with every town and village taking a handful of them. This woudl be a fairer, more sustainable appproach as the infratrusture wil alsways play catch-up.

No

Representation ID: 97588

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Anna Avino

Leamington has already exploded in the past five years. The roads are jammed, the services are overstretched and the vast housing developements and population explosion is changimg the character of the area and making it unpleasant. Infrastructure cannot cope with all the new 29,000 homes being concentrated in a few massive developments in the area particularly south Leamington and Whitnash which is gridlocked. These houses need to be fully dispersed across the whole of warwickshire with every town and village taking a handful of them. This woudl be a fairer, more sustainable appproach as the infratrusture wil alsways play catch-up.

No

Representation ID: 97624

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Melanie Elkington

This area is Green Belt and so should be protected.

No

Representation ID: 97683

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ann Turner

yet more green belt disappearing

Yes

Representation ID: 97743

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Jeffery

N/A

No

Representation ID: 98252

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anne Teed

Green belt land that should be protected. Ancient hedgerows, trees, footpaths and farmland destroyed.

No

Representation ID: 98277

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Daine Davis

Although this area is currently used for light industrial and agricultural purposes, it is entirely green belt and is also surrounded by attractive parkland which is used to leisure activities. There is a case that HS2 has already undermined the case for not redeveloping this area.

Yes

Representation ID: 98837

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs nicola girling

This is a great location to expand and use a site which is already there but completely under used.

Yes

Representation ID: 98946

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: MPTL

Agent: Harris Lamb

The Stoneleigh Park Employment Group should be a priority location for an allocation.

Stoneleigh Park is an existing employment site. It is adversely effected by HS2. A new policy is required to guide its development.

The HS2 compound adjacent to the A46 is a large PDL site in the Green Belt that should be allocated for development alongside the surrounding land.

No

Representation ID: 99116

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Susan Munday

This is at present a rural environment with the attractive and ancient village of Stoneleigh and historic Stoneleigh Abbey which will both become engulfed in suburbia and hence lose their atmospheric character.

Green Belt
This plan should not be passed as it uses precious green belt land which is there to keep built up areas distinct and separate.

Environmental impact.
Using this land will remove trees, quiet lanes and fields with a resulting loss of habitat for wildlife.

Infrastructure.
This site lacks the infrastructure needed resulting in busier roads as people will have to travel using the road network to Coventry, Kenilworth or Warwick for the essential services they need (schools, shops, doctors etc) also adding the the burden on these towns.

This is not a suitable location for further development, so please remove it from the SWLP.

Yes

Representation ID: 99118

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Martin Phelps

n/A

No

Representation ID: 99175

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Rawlings

This area will nearly join with Kenilworth and with Coventry.

Yes

Representation ID: 99403

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Tibbles

Appears to be well serviced by existing Road Network, Transportation hubs, Healthcare facilities and Education establishments

Yes

Representation ID: 99734

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

NA

Yes

Representation ID: 99744

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Cooper

Near A46

Yes

Representation ID: 99798

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Sabrina Hasnaoui

Despite being green belt land this area could be considered in 'exceptional circumstances' as per the green belt policy.
This is an industrial site where the environmental impact of any development would be lower due to previous development in the area.

No

Representation ID: 100155

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Philip Wall

Fully opposed to any development on Green Belt Land.

No

Representation ID: 100321

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Carter

Completely opposed to any development on Green Belt land.

No

Representation ID: 100395

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Aimee Carter

There are far better alternatives than destroying this Green Belt land.