Yes

Representation ID: 98370

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Garry Rollason

This site has good road transport links, it is near an existing motorway junction and is not in the Green Belt. Combined with SG13 this would be an excellent choice for a strategic growth site.

Yes

Representation ID: 98431

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Wright

Support development on non-green belt land.
In conjunction with SG13 this area provides a great opportunity for new housing and local amenities.
Surrounded by great transport network and employment opportunities.

No

Representation ID: 98467

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Wendy MCCAUGHAN

SG14 includes a pending App 23/01054/OUT which adversely affects 3 animal care businesses directly adjacent to the land.
NOISE, light and odor pollution will impact immensely.
HEALTH AND WELLBEING - Not a healthy environment to live in with NOISE, AIR and LIGHT POLLUTION - 24/7 HGVs
LOSS OF AMENITY/OVERBEARING. Gaydon village will be swallowed up and become an industrial town
Loss of Agricultural land/wildlife habitats
WHITE REPORT on behalf of SDC- not suitable for housing or commercial development
FLOODING AREA
NO RAIL LINKS.
OTHER MORE SUITABLE SITES

Yes

Representation ID: 98520

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Mccaughan

SG14 is OVERBEARING on Gaydon and will cause loss of AMENITY.
NOISE, LIGHT and AIR POLLUTION will have an adverse effect on the area and especially on the animal care businesses on Pimple Lane.
HEALTH AND WELLBEING. Detrimental impacts and will not be a healthy environment to live in.
FLOOD RISK.
WHITE REPORT ON BEHALF OF SDC specifically states not suitable for housing or commercial development especially the land area under pending app 23/01054/OUT.
VISUAL IMPACT - and industrial town replacing small village/rural. Avon Dassett country park Views?
No Rail links and infrastructure not adequate for potential industrial growth.

Yes

Representation ID: 98531

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Alice Hibbert

o New settlements can be driven by strategic opportunities not land availability
o Existing road connections
o Releases the congestion pressure from Stratford
o Potential for new Chiltern line railway station
o HS2 could offer quick links to key commuting areas
o Job opportunities in the area
o The Gaydon area could meet all housing needs with least impact on the environment, preserving greenbelt land

No

Representation ID: 98545

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Wendy MCCAUGHAN

Please see my previous comments.
I DO NOT AGREE SG14 should be included in the plan.
The system automatically put yes and would not let me change to NO

Yes

Representation ID: 98749

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Doug Wallace

N/A

Yes

Representation ID: 98794

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Hayward Developments Ltd

Agent: Stansgate Planning

Gaydon is a hugely import centre for employment, with close ties to the automative industry and excellent communication links via the adjacent M40. Gaydon and Lighthorne Heath provide housing and a range of local services and facilities, including a village shop, school, hall and public transport links, which serve the villages and the wider hinterland. Despite the number of houses approved during the current plan period at Lighthorne Heath there remains a considerable imbalance between employment and housing. New housing within SG14, East of Gaydon Group, will redress the imbalance and support local services and villages.

Yes

Representation ID: 98854

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms clare watson

Good site due to infrastructure links

Yes

Representation ID: 98926

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Tucker

In association with F3, G1 and SG13 the area benefits from excellent communications with the easy addition of a station on the Cherwell Line. High quality technical and engineering jobs exist and could be significantly expanded and a major sustainable centre created in a strong strategic location for the whole of the County.

Other

Representation ID: 98928

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline West

Only if facilities provided for existing growth before they start and in advance/ in parallel with any new growth.

Currently squeezing facilties and resources of pre-existing area eg doctors surgeries, schools etc. Must learn from experience and not penalise existing residents of South Warwickshire again.

Yes

Representation ID: 98961

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Louise Tucker

Including F3, G1 and SG13 this area adjacent to Gaydon has enormous potential benefiting from a direct motorway junction to the M40 and close proximity to the Chiltern Line to the East. It is well placed in relation to Leamington, Birmingham Airport and, indeed, London. It already employs high quality skilled workforce mainly based on technology or the automotive industry which could easily be encouraged and expanded as a new town with all the associated facilities and housing providing potential for a quality lifestyle and employment with excellent connectivity.

Yes

Representation ID: 99143

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr John Jones

Development of an area not containing green belt land.
Size of development opportunity.

No

Representation ID: 99454

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Tibbles

The area is predominantly rural, with poor access to existing Road Networks, Transportation hubs, Healthcare facilities and Education establishments. A development of this scale would overwhelm the local road networks and requires significant investment in all areas of basic services such as Water, Sewage & Power (no gas supply!) There are insufficient primary and secondary schools to serve the population, let alone with a significantly increased population, there is insufficient Healthcare provision both for basic GP services and hospitals - The nearest hospitals have insufficient capacity already. Emergency services such as Police, Fire and Ambulances are many miles away.

No

Representation ID: 99561

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

The sites within the cluster perform very badly on the objective scoring system and should be eliminated. In detail, my reasons are primarily that it is not in conformance with Strategic Objectives of the SWLP (S01, S04, S05. S06. S011 and S012) with which I broadly agree. I reference those objectives.

No

Representation ID: 99568

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul drinkwater

You are adding to much to the area around gaydon JLR and ASTON MARTIN are cutting back on there work force so adding in this area is very unlikely to benefit the area or any of the local industries around here

Yes

Representation ID: 99809

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

Good connectivity to M40 and settlement will support JLR employment opportunities.

Yes

Representation ID: 99833

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Cooper

Marginally closer than SG14 to M40.

Yes

Representation ID: 99883

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

This area has good road connections from the M40, etc, and there is potential for a new Chiltern line station nearby according to plans. Good employment opportunities nearby from JLR and associated industries and these developments can be derived from strategic opportunities in the area and not just land availability.
These areas could deliver the required housing numbers without using greenbelt land. There would be less chance of urban sprawl from existing settlements. It would also take the congestion pressure away from Stratford town area.

Yes

Representation ID: 99911

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Neil Eaton

Support required development on non green belt land

No

Representation ID: 99943

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Timothy & Di Griffiths

It is increasingly clear that simply adding more housing on the outskirts of every village in the South Warwickshire area that may have a bit of land available is a recipe for traffic problems, strained local facilities, poor civic and architectual design. Central government is clearly intent on covering every bit of green space it can find between London and Birmingham until the two cities merge. Instead, local authorities need to think far more creatively and I would suggest an alternative would be to find a site were a completely NEW TOWN to be built.

Yes

Representation ID: 100073

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Neil Brooker

If more houses are needed this Location is more suitable for development than others in the district.

No

Representation ID: 100083

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sangeet Kalyan

The area is saturated with development with no consideration to local wildlife. There are rare newts and bats. Additionally there are concerns with flooding and a lack of infrastructure to accommodate additional housing. There would be significant harm to listed properties and the character of the landscape. It is clear that it would be over development of the area.

Yes

Representation ID: 100107

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Philip Wall

Development should prioritise brownfield sites over Green Belt land. Urban and previously developed areas already have infrastructure in place, reducing pressure on roads, schools, and healthcare. These sites are closer to transport links and jobs, making them more sustainable. This site is particularly attractive due to its proximity to significant housing and industrial development, concentrating construction in a single area and minimising the impact on other locations. With190Ha available, it offers substantial capacity for growth. Using brownfield land prevents environmental damage, protects biodiversity, and preserves historic landscapes while ensuring responsible, sustainable development without harming the countryside.

Yes

Representation ID: 100168

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anna Taylor

The alternative sites provide superior infrastructure and better long-term sustainability. These areas offer strong employment prospects, well-established road networks, and the potential for a new Chiltern Line railway station, improving commuter accessibility. HS2’s links to key employment hubs make these locations more suitable for housing expansion without increasing congestion in Stratford. Unlike Green Belt land, these sites support growth with minimal environmental impact while avoiding urban sprawl that overwhelms local services. New communities should be driven by strategic opportunity rather than just land availability, ensuring housing developments enhance infrastructure rather than overburdening existing settlements.

Yes

Representation ID: 100291

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Carter

New development should focus on previously developed sites, not destroy protected Green Belt land. Urban and repurposed areas already have infrastructure in place, preventing additional strain on roads, schools, and healthcare. These locations are also closer to transport links and jobs, making them more sustainable. Using non-Green Belt land prevents irreversible environmental harm, safeguards biodiversity, and preserves important landscapes. It also protects communities from urban sprawl and helps to prevent flooding. By focusing on these sites, new housing can be delivered in a responsible way—without sacrificing the countryside or placing unbearable pressure on already stretched local services.

Yes

Representation ID: 100380

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: 100816

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Taylor

This proposal appears one of the more sensible sites. Proper infrastructure can be provided in area where, good roads and jobs already exists and growing economy can be established.

No

Representation ID: 101011

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Colin Mathews

SG14 inappropriate development
• Planned quantity of housing is not needed here, and starts sprawl from Lighthorne on opposite side of the M40
• Not adjacent to employment requiring travel for work contrary to local and national Net Zero Policies, increasing pressure on local roads
• Workers living closer to jobs raise output by 8%; location is contrary to national growth objectives.
• No facilities available locally
• Existing services (health, education, waste etc.) will be overwhelmed
Location is open countryside so productive farmland will be lost impacting national food security, biodiversity reduced and detracts from enjoyment of local landscape

No

Representation ID: 101046

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Pauline James

SG14 is productive farmland. Too much of that will be lost in SG13 - you do not need more in SG14. You can build in SG14 at densities of 160 dwellings per hectare, creating easily maintained homes suited to people in their early career.

It is extremely shortsighted to lose our farmland under suburban sprawl - land is finite, and future generations will need it. To waste it under houses in our lifetime robs the future.