No

Representation ID: 95260

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Hodgskinson

The proposal will remove the separation of the ancient village from the town so destroying its amenity . It is also likely to re-create the flood risk by building on the flood alleviation area below the village.
HS2 has created a large area of land which will not be used for the railway and once constuction is complete could be used for housing.

No

Representation ID: 95350

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Katharine Whigham

Sufficient housing in local plan without building on green belt. Unlawful to build on green belt land if capacity can be met elsewhere.
Road rail & public transport insufficient for increased traffic, regardless of for housing or industrial. Car use = unsustainable levels traffic and negative environmentally.
This green belt continues to fulfil its 5 stated purposes.
Destruction of high quality agricultural land.
Same proposals rejected by planning officer 2017.
Public footpaths used by thousands of local residents contributes to SWLP principles healthy safe & inclusive
Destruction of diverse wildlife habitat SWLP "Biodiverse &environmentally resilient"

No

Representation ID: 95413

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Molloy

OBJECTION
Promote car use. Roundabout near OLST School/Kenilworth/Cubbington Roads already dangerous and a traffic bottleneck. Risk to School Children. More speeding traffic through residential Lillington/Cubbington.
Noise/disruption/danger to school children extra public/construction traffic
Meet without greenbelt. Sustainability Appraisal- Strategic Growth +New Settlements (48,500+6000) dwellings NOT in green belt. Exceptional circumstances NOT met to release greenbelt.
Flood Risk?
Sprawl, villages/neighbourhoods, preserve town character, safeguarding countryside.
High quality ALC_Grade2 farmland high value for local food supply security
"Healthy, safe/ inclusive" and 'biodiverse/environmentally resilient'.
Better Non-Greenbelt options

No

Representation ID: 95485

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sara French

This space is valuable greenbelt and agricultural land, with many footpaths linking Cubbington to Newbold Comyn and Offchurch. It is a popular recreational space that includes access to the well-trodden Millenium Way. Building here would create unattractive urban sprawl, effectively joining Lillington and Cubbington, and would cripple the existing infrastructure. The roads in the local area would not be able to cope with the additional traffic this housing would generate, and all primary schools and North Leamington Secondary School are already at capacity. Building in this space would deplete agricultural land which annually produces large quantities of wheat and barley.

No

Representation ID: 95534

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Holliday

This area is farmland, we should be keep as much farmland as possible so we can grow more of our own food instead of importing food from abroad. It has to be more environmentally friendly to do so. This is green belt land and a dividing space between Lillington and Cubbington.
There are many public footpaths in this area, for the enjoyment of seeing the diversity of wildlife in this area, it would be terrible to destroy the habitat and the pleasure for the locals who would have to travel even further to find some greenery.

Yes

Representation ID: 95585

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Scragg

It is possible to meet housing need without building on green belt land, as according to the Sustainable Appraisal there is enough capacity in locations which are not in green belt land.

I believe that building houses would promote car use, as it lies outside the “20-minute neighbourhood” principle.

The five purposes of green belt land are met by SG05.

Having this land near-by to where I live contributes massively to me and my family being able to spent time in a healthy, safe and inclusive area.

Another overarching principle is to have a biodiverse and environmentally resilient South Warwickshire.

No

Representation ID: 96029

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr John Clayton

This area is agricultural farmland and vital to food production, the area is one of natural beauty with picturesque views across fields and woods, with multiple footpaths providing recreation and well being to residents and visitors. The area serves as a habitat for numerous wildlife, including foxes and badgers with several springs within the area which contribute to the river Lem.
This is an important area as it separates Lillington from Cubbington.
The road network will not cope with increased traffic.

No

Representation ID: 96182

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Wilkinson

The land here collects rainfall as it sits atop a hill. Building on here will cause flooding lower in Cubbington. Also the land is used extensively by dog walkers.

Other

Representation ID: 96744

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: 96956

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Jeffery

N/A

No

Representation ID: 97037

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Eamon Pickering

The Cubbington Link
The loss of important green belt also should not a discussion been had prior to considering this plan about green belt buffer requirement between Lillington and Cubbington Village including parts of New Cubbington.

The increased risk of flooding in the area particularly Offchurch Road and increased traffic would further exacerbate the traffic situation particularly at peak times increasing the risk of Road Traffic Incidents (RTI) on the Mini roundabout at the top of Windmill Hill, St Teresa’ School.

Additional infrastructure that would be needed to support this development and how the impact on the local area of such a large development would be managed, I believe it could not be managed without having a significant effect on the local area and the wellbeing of the surrounding community.

Yes

Representation ID: 97123

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Sir Thomas White’s Charity and The King Henry VIII Endowed Trust, Warwick

Agent: Stansgate Planning

Strategic Growth Location SG05 is the best location for development to meet housing needs in the Plan period. The site scores highest in the sustainability appraisal, and the three sites which make up the SGL all have low scores in the HELAA. The sustainability of the site, with close proximity to everyday services, facilities, schools and employment opportunities, coupled good transport connections, will have limited landscape impact and will not adversely impact any acknowledged interests including heritage assets, biodiversity, flooding and drainage. The land is available and can be developed without delay.

Other

Representation ID: 97198

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Richard Hopkins

I am sharing my views on the strategic growth planned for SG05 East of Lillington with the aim of providing a balanced perspective for Warwick District Council. I recognise the need for more housing due to population growth, but new developments need to enhance the area. I suggest considering the demolition of Eton Court, as residents deserve better housing and it poses a fire risk. If proper sewage and drainage can be ensured near Bungalow Farm, I support clearing adjacent fields for new housing, including social housing, to improve living conditions for Eton Court residents.

No

Representation ID: 97235

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Driffill

It will join up Cubbington village and Leamington to stop the separate identify of the areas. It is agriculturally important land that protects many species and allows locals to enjoy physical and mental health benefits. There is no easy access to rail or local transport hubs. It is a ridiculous idea.

Yes

Representation ID: 97247

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Susanne Dexter

Number of people: 3

[Personal information redacted] We write as local residents to strongly object to the above planning application of this large scale development site.
1. Unacceptable impact on environment, green belt, trees and hedgerows.
2. Increased traffic volume on already overloaded, badly maintained roads.
3. Noise and pollution greatly increased.
4. Impact on all essential services, sewage, schools, policing etc.
5. Detrimental to local wildlife, and plant species.
6. Increased risk of flooding in local area.

No

Representation ID: 97276

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Linda Hossaini

There is an abundance of wildlife we have foxes, badgers, robins, all sorts of birds in the area. The field area itself is prone to flooding near Newbold Common area and is uneven may not be suitable for building? There is busy traffic in the area flowing out towards busy roads into the town of Leamington. A more further site away from the towns already busy roads h would be more suitable.
The area is a natural habitat and a farming site where crops are grown and a public footpath located for local people please do not take this away.

No

Representation ID: 97341

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Daniel Russell

Sites LSP7 and LSP8 protect the separation between Lillington / Leamington and Cubbington Village – if SG05 is allowed to proceed, Cubbington will lose its village identity and be completely subsumed as a suburb of Leamington.2.1. There are no acceptable ways of accessing the site without overwhelming existing local traffic blackspots. Accessing the site from Buckley Road will lead to further congestion at the junction with Gresham Avenue and will overwhelm the current traffic calming measures on Leicester Street. Accessing the site from Offchurch Road will overwhelm the already dangerous roundabout at the junction between Rugby Road and Windmill Hill.

No

Representation ID: 97344

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Daniel Russell

Building in SG05 will severely damage the residential amenity of hundreds of residents, particularly people who live on Parklands Avenue and the closes off which back on to the fields. Cul-de-sac communities will be destroyed and become busy thoroughfares and rat runs.As there are no major retail outlets or supermarkets in Leamington North it would place an unacceptable burden on the roads to the town centre and the five river crossings. An increase in traffic would also result in an increase in air pollution through the town centre.

No

Representation ID: 97348

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Daniel Russell

I have severe reservations about the suitability of this site due to the topography of the land. Flooding could become an issue with surface water accumulating. The impact on wildlife and nature, particularly badger sets. Where would be the biodiversity loss compensated?

No

Representation ID: 97591

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: 97631

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Melanie Elkington

This is in Green Belt land and should be protected

Yes

Representation ID: 97746

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Jeffery

N/A

No

Representation ID: 98051

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Ashley Ha

I strongly oppose the proposed development of SG05 for the following reasons.
1. This area encompasses vital green spaces that serve as habitats for local wildlife and provide recreational opportunities for residents.

2.The proposed development would also encroach upon the Leam Valley Nature Reserve, managed by the Warwickshire Wildlife Trust. Disrupting this ecosystem would result in irreversible biodiversity loss.

3. The anticipated increase in traffic would not only heighten safety risks near schools but also exacerbate air and noise pollution, adversely affecting residents’ health.

Yes

Representation ID: 98054

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr FANFU WU

I strongly oppose the GS05 development due to severe flood risks, Green Belt loss, infrastructure strain, and environmental damage. The site slopes towards the River Leam, and development will increase surface water run-off, worsening flooding in Leamington Spa, Cubbington, and the Rivers Avon and Severn. The project will overwhelm local roads, schools, and healthcare, increasing congestion and pollution. It will also destroy vital wildlife habitats, including badger setts and fox dens. With no exceptional circumstances justifying Green Belt release, I urge Warwick District Council to reject this proposal and focus on sustainable brownfield development. GS05 must remain protected.

No

Representation ID: 98061

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr FANFU WU

I strongly oppose the GS05 development due to severe flood risks, Green Belt loss, infrastructure strain, and environmental damage. The site slopes towards the River Leam, and development will increase surface water run-off, worsening flooding in Leamington Spa, Cubbington, and the Rivers Avon and Severn. The project will overwhelm local roads, schools, and healthcare, increasing congestion and pollution. It will also destroy vital wildlife habitats, including badger setts and fox dens. With no exceptional circumstances justifying Green Belt release, I urge Warwick District Council to reject this proposal and focus on sustainable brownfield development. GS05 must remain protected.

No

Representation ID: 98069

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Janine McComiskey

Words from ombparish.org.uk:
The Local Plan's own Sustainability Appraisal shows that:
• Strategic Growth Locations which are NOT in the green belt have capacity for 48,500 dwellings (Table 5.1).
• New Settlements which are NOT in the green belt have capacity for a further 6,000 dwellings (Table 6.1).
This means that it is possible to meet housing need without building on green belt land. Sufficient capacity exists at
Strategic Growth Locations outside the Green Belt to meet the Local Plan dwelling requirements to 2050.

Therefore, exceptional circumstances cannot be met to release green belt sites to meet the housing requirements.

No

Representation ID: 98148

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Nicola Palmer

I am against SG05, as this area separates Lillington from Cubbington. Without it, they would merge, and they are very different, long-established communities. These fields are rich in wildlife, including badgers (many setts visible), foxes and muntjac deer. Bats and birds of prey hunt here, buzzards, kites and sparrowhawks also sit in the surrounding trees. Private gardens surrounding the fields benefit from a wide range of birds, including wrens and woodpeckers. Roads in Lillington and Cubbington are already busy, with the Telford Avenue/Cubbington Road junction difficult at peak times as well as Compton's Garage roundabout. Local schools already at capacity.

No

Representation ID: 98263

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anne Teed

Green belt land should not be developed.

No

Representation ID: 98287

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Daine Davis

Although this is a relatively small parcel of land adjacent to an existing urban area, it is green belt and there are no "exceptional circumstances"

Other

Representation ID: 98426

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Brown

In summary, the proposed development we mean a loss of identity for the local areas, create a significant risk of flooding in lower Leam Valley, increase risks of accidents on roads and pathways due to poor infrastructure in a surrounding areas not just immediate area, impact negatively of the wildlife and agricultural activities and remove critical open access to current residents to free natural spaces for exercise and enjoyment and have yet another detrimental impact on the immediate area following HS2 impact currently being imposed.