Yes

Representation ID: 100374

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Aimee Carter

New housing should be developed on land that has already been built on, not on protected Green Belt land. Urban areas and brownfield sites already have the infrastructure to support new developments, reducing the pressure on roads, schools, and healthcare.
Building in non-Green Belt areas also means:
• Less environmental damage and better protection for wildlife.
• More sustainable transport options, reducing long commutes and carbon emissions.
• Preventing towns and villages from merging and losing their unique identities.
• Reducing flood risks caused by overdevelopment.
Destroying the Green Belt isn’t the answer—there are much better options available.

Yes

Representation ID: 100591

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Residents Concerned for Kenilworth South

Support housing development on non-green belt land.

Other

Representation ID: 100607

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural England - Warwickshire

This is a a very large area of farmland, 354 ha. It includes Tachbrook Mallory, the prominent wood on Highdown Hill and two farms. The land SW of Harbury Lane would not be a suitable strategic growth extension.
The land between Harbury Lane and the railway is the site of the 1930s Leamington Airfield and includes a scrapyard and a container storage base. It lies in the area of Whitnash Town Council and part is suggested for a new settlment ('X2'). An urban extension here is possible, but that would depend on the future of the golf course.

Yes

Representation ID: 101321

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Zoe Leventhal

One of largest sites and outside of green belt. to be supported over all GB sites and to be encouraged in view of size and housing capacity

No

Representation ID: 101753

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Janet Neale

This area cannot take any more growth. The highways network is broken, schools can't cope and public transport is poor.
Homes need to go to new settlements away from the urban sprawl which is now Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash.

No

Representation ID: 101843

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Site SG11 – South East of Whitnash would have major adverse impacts, including increased carbon footprint, harm to a Local Wildlife Site, listed buildings and high-quality agricultural land. It contradicts the SWLP’s evidence-led strategy, as it is open countryside, lacks sustainable transport links and is not in an area of deprivation. Parts of the site are at flood risk and its development would lead to coalescence between Whitnash and Bishop’s Tachbrook. While it provides housing/employment land, its allocation is unsustainable and inconsistent with national and local planning policies, particularly regarding heritage, environmental protection and strategic growth planning.

No

Representation ID: 102077

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Malcolm Lines

This area impacts heavily on Green Belt, while also overlaid as a potential new settlement. It would advance the coalescence of existing communities/identities. There is no supportable infrastructure in place and highways are inappropriate. Together with sites (REFIDs 46 and 872) it would bracket L&CGC Golf Club such that residents would be at risk of stray golf balls.

The golf course is integral to WTC's N'hood Plan and it is impossible these sites could be developed without development of bridleway with loss of amenity and forfeiture of L&CGC land. This is not sustainable.

No

Representation ID: 102175

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Niall Shimmin

Location will clearly overload Harbury Lane and the junction with the Fosse.
It floods regularly.

No

Representation ID: 102193

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Niall Shimmin

Will overload Harbury Lane which is already a bottle neck at the Fosse junction, greatly improved by recent works.
Flood regularly.

Yes

Representation ID: 102575

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Andrews

Development on non-green belt land should be prioritised over development on green belt. Total housing needs can be met without developing on green belt so morally not right to remove green belt without exceptional cause.
These areas are better supported with existing infrastructure and transport network without requiring major investment on more remote, less connected areas.
The opportunity in terms of yield is higher in these areas so there is a duty to fulfil the housing needs in the most responsible way considering this and the green belt obligations.

Yes

Representation ID: 102715

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Liz Churchill

I prefer to see all non Green-belt sites being used.

Other

Representation ID: 102758

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Severn Trent Water

This development will likely require treatment at Warwick - Longbridge (STW) Treatment Works, this Wastewater Treatment Works has medium capacity and high environmental constraints. Due to the size of the development, it is recommended that network upgrades will be required, alongside hydraulic modelling and engagement with STW. Overall this development site is considered a medium/high risk location, there is some capacity however in order to accommodate growth, infrastructure upgrades will be required and we would need to work closely to understand build timelines, in order to plan accordingly.

No

Representation ID: 102946

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Howard Easton

Given that all maps fail to include the route of HS2, the impact of these plans fail to indicate the how much of Warwickshire is going to be destroyed by these myopic proposals.

No

Representation ID: 102986

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Chesterton and Kingston Parish Meeting

This area along Harbury Lane overlaps potential new settlement site X2. It extends south east of the Fosseway along Harbury Lane to include land that runs up to the 17th century Grade 1 ancient monument Chesterton Windmill. This area is completely dependent on road transport. There is flooding along Harbury Lane on a regular basis. The landscape from the Fosseway up to the windmill ( Site ID 612) is very steep and is an area with many and significant archaeological features.

Yes

Representation ID: 103076

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Neal Appleton

Whilst the aim is for people to live close to where they work and for Active Travel to be a priority, it must be acknowledged that people often choose to reside and work in different places. Commuting is the norm and the SWLP must accommodate this. Settlement expansion and locations of new settlements must be supported by transport infrastructure.

Yes

Representation ID: 103272

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Keith Allan

If building of new houses is to go ahead then building on non-Green belt land is more appropriate

Yes

Representation ID: 103479

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carol Jones

Support strategic growth locations on non-greenbelt land.

Other

Representation ID: 103501

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Sarah Shalgosky

n'a

No

Representation ID: 103641

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Chesterton and Kingston Parish Meeting

Within this strategic growth location there is site ID 591 " Land at Windmill Hill Farm" This is a site that was rejected for planning permission on 9 July 2024 ( App ref 23/02902/FUL).

Yes

Representation ID: 103778

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Steve Churchill

I believe that all new development should be made only on Non Green Belt or Brown Field sites.

No

Representation ID: 103906

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Diana Taulbut

Whitnash and Bishop's Tachbrook are close enough as it is. It's completely disrespectful to the integrity of both settlements to join them together.

No

Representation ID: 104007

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kay Haycock

Deliverability is impossible due to infrastructure deficits, with no clear plans to mitigate traffic congestion or environmental degradation.
Inconsistent with NPPF principles, particularly regarding environmental sustainability and preserving distinct settlement identities i.e., that of Bishop’s Tachbrook village.
Conclusion
SG11 should be reconsidered due to adverse environmental, heritage, and infrastructure impacts.

Yes

Representation ID: 104034

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Nicola Sawle

non greenbelt and meets the M40 requirement

No

Representation ID: 104080

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Amanda Waters

Would cause damage to surrounding countryside and additional traffic. Not so close to existing employment centres as others or to public transport or road network

No

Representation ID: 104093

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Louis haycock

Deliverability is impossible due to infrastructure deficits, with no clear plans to mitigate traffic congestion or environmental degradation.
Inconsistent with NPPF principles, particularly regarding environmental sustainability and preserving distinct settlement identities i.e., that of Bishop’s Tachbrook village.
Conclusion
SG11 should be reconsidered due to adverse environmental, heritage, and infrastructure impacts.

Yes

Representation ID: 104303

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Carl Bergstrom

this is a good development plan

Yes

Representation ID: 104442

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sharon Ward

I support the proposed strategic growth location SG11 because it focuses development on non-greenbelt land, using existing infrastructure rather than requiring costly new roads and services. This approach enables much-needed housing while avoiding damage to rural landscapes, important footpaths, and the area’s heritage. By building where facilities and transport links already exist, SG11 supports sustainable, well-planned growth that fits the local context.

No

Representation ID: 104526

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Ailsa Chambers

The independent village characteristics of Bishops Tachbrook are under severe threat owing to the constant sprawl of development between the village and Leamington. It is not clear why this location has been selected over and above other options. The loss of prime agricultural land does not justify the proposal. We already experience traffic congestion as a result of previous developments and there are insufficient infrastructure plans to mitigate further population growth. The environmental loss of natural habitats from further development cannot be mitigated satisfactorily by any measure - too much has been lost already.

Other

Representation ID: 104550

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Dunning

YES ONLY IF the development is high density, linked with public transport and active travel infrastructure.

Do not build detached homes anywhere.
Painted bicycle gutters are NOT active travel infrastructure.
A bus is a bad public transport solution.

Yes

Representation ID: 104580

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kay Williams

yes as it is not in the green belt