No

Representation ID: 92549

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Madeleine Cox

Given the excessive burden of development already imposed in this area, this risks creating an urban sprawl, contrary to principles of maintaining distinct and individual settlement identities. Tachbrook has already lost so much natural habitat and prime agricultural land to development and this site is not justified or effective. The roads in this area are already struggling following other developments. This goes against NPPF principles. Bishop's Tachbrook has already had more than its share of development and the infrastructure cannot cope with even more. It risks being swallowed up by the Leamington/ Whitnash sprawl and losing its rural identity.

Yes

Representation ID: 92672

Received: 28/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Eileen Jasinski

This non green belt site is a prime location for development, having excellent infrastructure and employment opportunities. It is also a substantial area for housing development being approximately 320Ha. Combined with other non greenbelt sites could satisfy the SWLP housing requirements without using valuable greenbelt land.

Yes

Representation ID: 92903

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ed Molloy

Not Green Belt. Extend recently developed areas. Good links to motorways, industry and shopping south of Leamington

No

Representation ID: 93069

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Cathy Kennedy

Warwick and its environs have had their share of ‘growth’ in the last 10 years. Time to let another area enjoy the benefits.

Yes

Representation ID: 93157

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs June McAinsh

This site is a preferred option as it would not devastate biodiversity and the greenbelt

No

Representation ID: 93262

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Mairi Mitchell

SG11 as part of the SWLP infringes on the edge of the village of Bishops Tachbrook and reduces the separation the village has from the main town of Leamington Spa reducing the heritage and distinct character of the village. Additional development goes against previous development plans which brought in the designation of tachbrook Country Park as a buffer of green space between the village and Leamington Spa’s urban sprawl. The assessment does not provide clarity on why this location is selected and does not give clear direction on how key infrastructure issues will be addressed.

No

Representation ID: 93267

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Scott Bower

SG11 as part of the SWLP infringes on the edge of the village of Bishops Tachbrook and reduces the separation the village has from the main town of Leamington Spa reducing the heritage and distinct character of the village. Additional development goes against previous development plans which brought in the designation of tachbrook Country Park as a buffer of green space between the village and Leamington Spa’s urban sprawl. The assessment does not provide clarity on why this location is selected and does not give clear direction on how key infrastructure issues will be addressed.

Other

Representation ID: 93430

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Bernard Davis

Parts of this area are close to existing urban development, so suitable, but the extreme Southern half is too far from its natural catchment area.

Yes

Representation ID: 93613

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Molly McAinsh

This would provide a housing option that would be sustainable and not encroach on to greenbelt land

Yes

Representation ID: 93625

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Christopher Bennett

I feel this (along with SG09/SG10/X1 and X2) is one of the most suitable sites for housing of all. This is a logical extension to the well established and continued development of South Leamington. It is well supported by the current and additional infrastructure already being provided by this ongoing development including access to the M40 motorway junctions 14 and 14. Housing developments alongside motorway corridors are already established in relation to the M40 as elsewhere nationally and because of the motorway the countryside here, whilst valuable, is less pristine and less ecologically important than other sites under consideration.

Yes

Representation ID: 93647

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Isadora McAinsh

This would provide a sustainable option for housing in the local area which would not encroach on greenbelt land

Yes

Representation ID: 93710

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Professor Andrew McAinsh

I would support this as it would provide more local employment opportunities

No

Representation ID: 93988

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Sarah THOMAS

Building on this site could turn Bishops Tachbrook into a suburb of Leamington Spa, resulting in a loss of village community. The area lacks the amenities to support growth, and traffic is already a challenge. The Shires retail park is overcrowded, and commuting to surrounding towns, especially Warwick, is difficult due to poorly designed roads. While more housing is needed, new settlements should be prioritized over expanding existing towns.

Yes

Representation ID: 94246

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jon Redhead

This site would provide good infrastructure connection with its close links to employment areas, and would not impact on Green Belt, in an already popular living area. The increase in traffic is already being addressed with a revised road network, although local Schools and GP Surgeries would benefit from upgrades, and expansion where possible. This area of Leamington has very high employment because of its' close proximity to large industry and retail.

Yes

Representation ID: 94538

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr John Steen

Not Green Belt land

Other

Representation ID: 94704

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Jackson

N/A

Other

Representation ID: 94724

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Kineton Parish Council

we have insufficient knowledge of this location from which to make an informed comment

No

Representation ID: 95182

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Edward Wilson

The infrastructure will not match the schooling, medical, transport,etc needs which are already under immense pressure. It also covers areas of Heritage - the Roman camp which conflicts with both the tourism and heritage aspirations. It also covers an area of potential solar panels which will further urbanise and destroy agricultural land.

No

Representation ID: 95320

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Chris Edgeworth

The proposed 6000 homes beside Bishops Itchington is unsustainable because:
Unsustainable traffic on the local B roads. Lack of capacity at the local primary and secondary schools. Lack of local facilities. Lack of local public transport with limited destinations.

Yes

Representation ID: 95424

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Molloy

Better to increase current development in the South of Leamington/Warwick towards the motorways. Not Green Belt, close to transport links, combined infrastructure with recent developments in that area. South of river in and so residents do not need to cross bottle neck bridges to visit commercial, industrial and retail.

No

Representation ID: 95484

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Holliday

This is farmland and needs to be protected.

No

Representation ID: 95489

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Leamington and County Golf Club

Leamington & County Golf Club has been in existence since 1908 and has provided much needed physical and social interaction for thousands of local residents. It is designated within the Whitnash Town Council Neighbourhood Plan as being integral to the area
We currently have c700 members in all categories including social and maintain approximately 120 acres as an important green area. I wish to voice extreme concern about any plans which will in any way impinge on the playability of the course and the ability of members, visitors and local residents to enjoy this important facility.

Yes

Representation ID: 95553

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Clarke

Development in this location is adjacent to pre-existing development and does not undermine green belt policy that has served the country well for many years. It is accessible to the M40.

No

Representation ID: 95566

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Bishops Itchington Parish Council

Bishop’s itchington Parish Council (BIPC) objects to the inclusion of this site in the SWLP.
Several concerns are relevant to growth at this site
Southam is one of the Strategic Growth Locations (SGLs) that may result in adverse impacts on biodiversity due to factors like air quality, water quality/quantity, recreation, urbanisation, and habitat fragmentation.
Southam is adjacent or in proximity to numerous Local Green Spaces (LGSs), which could be affected by the development.
As with other development sites situated north of the village, the natural draw of junction 12 of the M40 will pull significant additional traffic volumes and large vehicles through the centre of Bishop’s Itchington. This is considered unacceptable detriment to the character of the village, to the residential amenity of those living there and to the highway safety.

No

Representation ID: 95773

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

SG11 South East Of Whitnash Group
I do not agree with this cluster being included in the plan as set out.
Whilst broadly supporting the strategic objectives, this parcel of land is an elongated ribbon of differing character between its western and southern eastern ends, crossing District boundaries. It scores badly at 63.38 and has flooding and landscape issues that make unusable for development consideration at the south eastern portion close to the hamlet of Chesterton.

No

Representation ID: 95866

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Whitnash Residents Association

Agent: Whitnash Residents Association

Harbury Lane unsuitable

Urban sprawl from Whitnash

No

Representation ID: 96150

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Aaron Thomas

Should be reconsidered due to adverse environmental, heritage, and infrastructure impacts.

Yes

Representation ID: 96225

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr James Pateman

Build housing on non-greenbelt land.

Yes

Representation ID: 96262

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Madeline Eaton McShane

Non greenbelt

No

Representation ID: 96306

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Matthew Burns

This plan encroaches to close to a grade listed structure and will cause damage to historical sites, in roman Chesterton. This site needs to either be paired back or stopped. Also there must be actual brown field land to build on first as this is all green land.