No

Representation ID: 93252

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: John Murphy

This is GROSS OVER DEVELOPMENT which is not beneficial, indeed very harmful, to the locality. Yes, develop round the old NVRS site but do not cross the A429 and go north - with devastating impact on environment and landscape - The A429 is not able to take much more traffic and the traffic round Barford is already very heavy at peak times with near impossibility to leave the village via the Barford Bypass junctions. IF there is significant development to the south of Barford then revised junctions become essential - there is already a bad enough safety record, with fatalities.

No

Representation ID: 93433

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Patrick Norton

Object to increase in traffic and associated particulates, destruction of agricultural land, elimination of rural nature of the area, and increasing infrastructure requirements that are not in place, sewage, hospital, power, water and IT. Adequate and appropriate schools not available.
Negative Impacts on Wasperton, Barford and Sherbourne.
Flooding already worsening and zero consideration for the water table rising.
Further pollution of the Avon.
Sufficient extra housing is planned already.
Destruction of “entry to the Cotswolds” vista.

Other

Representation ID: 93441

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Bernard Davis

Wellesbourne is a partly self-contained village and, as such, can accomode reasonable expansion, provided local amenities are expanded to provide for more people. The scale of the proposed development is probably too large in relation to the original and recent housing in the village.

No

Representation ID: 93509

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anita Markwick

I object on the grounds of changing the look of Wellesbourne, lack of infrastructure, roads, buses, trains. Health services are already full and struggling as is educational needs. Flooding will become a regular and devastating occurrence.

Yes

Representation ID: 93520

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jon Redhead

This Location would provide many benefits as far as transport, local employment, with access to surrounding countryside without the need to destroy too much green space.

No

Representation ID: 93542

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Shelagh Marshall

SG15 is an area of open agricultural land that is representative of rural Warwickshire. Taken in conjunction with SG16, Warwick University development, the Wellesbourne Airfield, proposed Solar Installations, existing Solar Installation at Elms Farm, Wasperton Gravel pit and the inadequate and dangerous B4087 further development is completely inappropriate.
There are heritage sites, Charlcote House, conservation village Newbold Pacey and woodland at Oakley Wood.
X1 development would effectively join Wellesbourne to Leamington and Warwick with the M40 as an artificial barrier.
It is difficult to see how additional development benenefits local people.

No

Representation ID: 93549

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jane Markham

The development is proposed within an area which will inevitably lead to additional impact on the already depleted/exhausted local provision for infrastructure needs such as roads and sewers, water, education and health. The road structure is inadequate and the intended new motorway junction on the M40 south of Warwick is more likely to increase this burden long term rather than reduce it. Health and education services are stretched beyond capacity and, on at least 4 days in the week, traffic is at a standstill on the A429, often in both directions. Such development is wholly inappropriate.

Yes

Representation ID: 93609

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Molly McAinsh

This would provide a sustainable option by using one of the largest non-greenbelt

Yes

Representation ID: 93638

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Christopher Bennett

This site is a suitable extension to the already dense and recently expanded area of housing in Wellesbourne. It is in direct proximity to all the existing community services and facilities available in Wellesbourne and access to the A429 and M40 is also very convenient.

Yes

Representation ID: 93659

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Isadora McAinsh

This would provide a good compromise where the land is not greenbelt but housing can be provided in a sustainable way using existing infrastructure

Yes

Representation ID: 93714

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Professor Andrew McAinsh

I would support this as it would not use greenbelt land and provide a way to build housing in a sustainable way

No

Representation ID: 93808

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Eleanor Rowe

Use brownfield sites

No

Representation ID: 93850

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Malcolm Boyd

There are so many reasons this is not appropriate. School is full, it’s a flood plain and serious risk to residents in neighbouring streets where there is already flood issues with the brook, traffic and amenities in Wellesbourne cannot cope with additional houses of this volume and we already have expanded and offered housing for more than the required future forecast.

No

Representation ID: 93937

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Malcolm Hiles

Charlecote is a separate village and community to Wellesbourne with its own identity and should remain so for future generations. What I see with the local plan is the growth of Wellesbourne that in effect amalgamates the village into the larger conurbation of Wellesbourne. Charlecote will inevitably lose that special "village feel" without the light and noise pollution of being close to a larger light industrial and housing 'town'

No

Representation ID: 93940

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Malcolm Hiles

Charlecote is a separate village and community to Wellesbourne with its own identity and should remain so for future generations. What I see with the local plan is the growth of Wellesbourne that in effect amalgamates the village into the larger conurbation of Wellesbourne. Charlecote will inevitably lose that special "village feel" without the light and noise pollution of being close to a larger light industrial and housing 'town'

No

Representation ID: 93943

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Beverley Comley

This area is currently at full traffic capacity and as much of it floods as there are many rivers and brooks it is an area that only needs small scale development in existing villages.

No

Representation ID: 93952

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Chris Murphy

This site would lead to a large loss of agricultural land; it would have a deleterious effect on the amount of traffic using the A429 which is already a very busy road and would impact junctions both at Wellesbourne and Barford; it would impact landscape and tourism for Wellesbourne.

No

Representation ID: 93959

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Diana Lopez

Loss of Green Spaces.
Schools, healthcare, or transport ALREADY under pressure, and no improvements or additions are planned
Increased traffic, pollution, and pressure on overstretched services

No

Representation ID: 94022

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Molly Robbins

Wellesbourne is a rural VILLAGE these plans threaten our village standing, we don’t have the infrastructure to support anymore houses in the village, our doctors surgery, dentist and school is at max capacity! Not to mention the destruction of our lovely wildlife! I implore you NOT to go ahead with these plans for the future happiness of Wellesbourne and the lives of the people living in it depends on it.

No

Representation ID: 94024

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Sarah Duffin

I don’t agree with the houses being built. The area doesn’t have the resources to support, including doctors surgery, schools, etc. as well as road infrastructure.

No

Representation ID: 94050

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ben Miloudi

Shambolic website. I'm being asked to fill in "yes", "no" or "other" with no visible question. Surely due process is not being followed? Farcical. See screenshot.

No

Representation ID: 94060

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ben Miloudi

This appears to be a lazy way of developing the area, again on green belt land. Brownfield site in more industrial areas should be sought for such developments.

No

Representation ID: 94151

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Major

Please keep our wildlife and open spaces.

No

Representation ID: 94179

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Kevin McFall

Already been an explosion of new developments here over the last 5 years. No infrastructure in place to cope with extra demand., schools, dentist doctors etc absolutely no consideration given to this. Loss of green spaces & with this increased traffic pollution and congestion.

Yes

Representation ID: 94202

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Patalong

No I do not as we have not enough amenities and infrastructure for the existing many housing estates. Plus there is increased traffic and flooding since the build of recent estates.

No

Representation ID: 94217

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Andrew Close

This proposal is worrying given the amount of housing/mixed use proposed when compared to other areas of similar sizes. The density is wrong and its location is clearly not sustainable; nowhere near a mainline train station. Car travel and air pollution will increase and must mean both the site-specific and cumulative impacts can't be mitigated to any appropriate satisfaction. The SA document conclusions indicating the potential for development here are far too high-level and should be reviewed. This option appears contrary other plan's policies.

No

Representation ID: 94237

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Victoria Ive

Too many houses in Wellesbourne, not enough space in schools, doctors or dentist. Concerned over traffic and loss of green spaces.

No

Representation ID: 94268

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Jo Brown

I object to this wholeheartedly. Wellesbourne not have in infrastructure to support this many new homes. Our primary school is full, as are surrounding ones. Our G.P practice is full. There is already traffic issues getting in and out of the village-especially on Market days. We will also have extra traffic coming by through due to the quarry being granted at wasperton. There is already more flooding in Wellesbourne and this will just increase with no where for excess water to flow. It is not a well thought out or sutainable plan for the long term.

Other

Representation ID: 94274

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr john cooknell

This site is on the WCC minerals protection zone (sand and gravel). Prior extraction of the minerals will be carried out.
Your strategic vision should highlight the gravel quarrying requirements.

Yes

Representation ID: 94438

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Belinda Brown

This is non-green belt land and therefore a much more appropriate potential development site. No homes should be being built on green belt land as a part of this SWLP, when there are other sites, including this one, available!