Yes

Representation ID: 100938

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Aldridge

This site would have much lower impact on the environment and infrastructure than many of the other proposals

Yes

Representation ID: 101053

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Melissa Gillone

This site is significantly better than the BW site, as it lacks heritage constraints and does not contribute to the same level of urban sprawl.

Other

Representation ID: 101056

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Stevens

There is an assumption that this proposed settlement is more favoured as it has a nearby railway station at Lapworth, but this assumption that this will equate to an increased service correlation for expanded developments and rising population is flawed. Chiltern Railways have already stated that they will not increase their service, maintaining it at a poor, one stop per every two hours at Lapworth. Did any consultation take place with the railway operators?

No

Representation ID: 101086

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs june Goldsmith

This is an important area for outdoor exercise and leisure activities promoting mental and physical well being
The canal in this area is an historic heritage site

No

Representation ID: 101450

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ginny White

The proposed development would have a detrimental impact on local wildlife and reduce access to nature for people living in urban areas. Please consider wildlife sites at Gilbert's and Claypits coppices, Linnear Woodland LWS.

No

Representation ID: 101451

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Sarah Dryhurst

I formally object to the proposed C1 development and Infill proposals in Lapworth and Rowington. Having grown up in Lapworth, I believe the development will devastate the area, destroying the countryside and local charm with 7,000 new dwellings, which is excessive and unsustainable. It will lead to pollution, loss of greenbelt and wildlife, and overcrowding in local schools and transport systems. The proposal does not meet local housing needs and contradicts planning policies aimed at preserving village character. I urge the council to reconsider and seek more suitable locations for development.

No

Representation ID: 101672

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Sue Cole

C1 does not satisfy the sustainable 20 minute neighbourhood policy set out in the draft SWLP.
The HEDNA cites census data requiring lower development figures than that required by Government so it is premature to allocate reserve housing upto 2050.
Practical issues such low bridges, canals, narrow winding roads, lack of capacity at Lapworth station as well as impacts on heritage, ecology and biodiversity, inadequate infrastructure , schools, health mean that the proposal is already scored as low and would require very significant investment to remedy and represents poor value for money and should therefore be resisted.

No

Representation ID: 102154

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Holly Chenu

I object to this new settlement location as an inappropriate use of green belt land.
Also, it is unviable because of the lack of suitable road infrastructure, public transport, schooling and local amenities - all future residents would need cars, leading to congestion and dangerous conditions

No

Representation ID: 102170

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Williams

This proposed has capacity for 4,960 dwellings, resulting in a potential population increase of 11,900. The resulting population would be an unreasonable 6 times the existing population of 2,373 as recorded in the 2021 Census. The New Settlements Assessment – South Warwickshire Local Plan published in November 2024 noted that 1 new Secondary school and 3 to 4 new primary schools would be required to support the expanded population in an area of poor employment opportunities. If existing Green Belt is to be removed for housing Kingswood would seem to be an extremely poor choice of location.

Yes

Representation ID: 102457

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Rowington Landowner Consortium

Agent: Knight Frank LLP

The New Settlement on land south of Kingswood (site C1) presents a highly sustainable and strategic opportunity for new development, benefiting from excellent transport links and accessibility, including direct access to Lapworth train station and local services. Ranked third out of 12 in the SA, the site performs strongly overall, and while environmental considerations such as heritage and pollution impacts have been identified, these can be appropriately mitigated through careful design and targeted mitigation measures, reinforcing the site’s suitability to be taken forward as a preferred location for a new settlement for the next stage of the local plan.

Yes

Representation ID: 102491

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Rowington Landowner Consortium

Agent: Knight Frank LLP

The New Settlements Assessment (NSA) identifies Site C1 for 4,960 homes, ranking it third of 12 for sustainability, but currently deems it less suitable due to transport and employment concerns. However, with enhanced active travel, bus links, and railway station upgrades, the site could provide a further improved transport strategy and should be assessed positively. Further transport modelling is needed for SRN improvements, and as part of the Greater Birmingham and Black Country HMA, it could address unmet housing needs. C1 is suitable, available, and achievable, and should be a preferred option in the Local Plan.

No

Representation ID: 102538

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Rowington Parish Council

Agent: RCA Regeneration

The Parish Council strongly objects to the proposed New Settlement Location C1. Please refer to attached full PDF representation submission. In summary:
The proposed allocations should be re-assessed in light of the introduction of Grey Belt.
Allocations should not be required in the Green Belt.
New Settlement Location C1 is, on the Council's own assessment, less suitable for development than other options. It is not suitable due to its Green Belt Location, poor transport links, high landscape sensitivity, rural character, natural and built environment assets, infrastructure.
The site does not meet the minimum settlement size.
The site is not deliverable.

No

Representation ID: 102616

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Matthew Newson

I strongly oppose New Settlement Location C1 (Land south of Kingswood). This "less suitable" area conflicts with the council’s objectives for sustainability, climate resilience, and net-zero carbon. Lapworth station has limited parking, no step-free access, and no capacity for increased services, increasing car dependency. Single-lane, unlit roads with low bridges and no pavements would worsen congestion. Frequent power cuts, no mains gas, and poor mobile coverage make it unsuitable for large-scale development. Developing this greenfield site would harm ancient woodland, agricultural land, and historical sites, undermining biodiversity and heritage protection. Prioritising brownfield sites aligns better with the council’s stated goals.

No

Representation ID: 102641

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Matthew Newson

I strongly oppose New Settlement Location C1 (Land south of Kingswood). This "less suitable" area conflicts with the council’s objectives for sustainability, climate resilience, and net-zero carbon. Lapworth station has limited parking, no step-free access, and no capacity for increased services, increasing car dependency. Single-lane, unlit roads with low bridges and no pavements would worsen congestion. Frequent power cuts, no mains gas, and poor mobile coverage make it unsuitable for large-scale development. Developing this greenfield site would harm ancient woodland, agricultural land, and historical sites, undermining biodiversity and heritage protection. Prioritising brownfield sites aligns better with the council’s stated goals.

No

Representation ID: 102650

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr DENIS RAMPLIN

Objection: For proposed Lapworth expansion.

Lapworth has one each of school, nursery, surgery, and Post Office being unable to cope with extra volume.

Railway station has 16 parking spaces, infrequent service with buses or large lorries unable to go under the bridge.

Electricity power cuts, no gas. Flooding is not dealt with effectively.
Rising Lane is without kerbs being dangerous for walkers negotiating the speedy “rat-run”.
Canal bridge is too small causing car crashes.

Wildlife disturbance as deer, egrets, and birds enjoy the diversity of Lapworth.

Canals are a conservation area with many listed buildings.

Developments would destroy the “village”.

No

Representation ID: 102794

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jem Brown

Agree this is not a suitable site for housing. More rural than some other areas eg B1 and E1, and within the Green Belt and lacking infrastructure although admittedly Lapworth Station is 1km away. The proposed site contains a number of Local Wildlife Sites including: Rowington Coppice (5ha of ancient woodland); Turners End Farm; the Long Meadow; Western Hall Farm. It also contains around 10ha wetland and 7ha woodland

No

Representation ID: 102933

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lesley Ramplin

Lapworth
To whom it may concern

This is my objection to the proposed housing developments in Lapworth.

Following are inadequate re expansion:
General infrastructure
Proposed sites (and surrounding areas) flood frequently
Sewerage system, human waste in road
School/doctors surgery/railway station/rail service
Canal bridge
Few pavements
Street lighting

Concerns for wildlife.

Egrets (wading birds) currently inhabit at least one of the proposed sites.
other wildlife currently inhabiting the area are roe deer/muntjac deer/buzzards

Other

Representation ID: 103022

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Severn Trent Water

This development will likely require treatment at Norton Green (STW) Treatment Works, this Wastewater Treatment Works has low capacity constraints 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: 103595

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Philip Wall

Impact on Forest of Arden and greenbelt / prime agricultural land

No

Representation ID: 103855

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Geraldine Ward

Inappropriate development in green belt. Likely negative environmental impact in terms of effects on flora and fauna habitats, increased flooding risks and carbon pollution. Risks coalescence of settlements. Current roads not suitable for increased traffic volumes, raise risks of accidents and reduces health benefits derived by local residents and visitors from walking, cycling and horse-riding in the area around Kingswood and Rowington. Current train services limited. New building will increase local car use. Lack of proximity to shopping facilities. Local GP surgery at capacity.

No

Representation ID: 103905

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Bleby

Deleterious and dangerous traffic mvts.
Loss of rural nature of two canals.
Relative isolation for elderly and young families in transport terms.
Unlikely provision of suitable employment locally

No

Representation ID: 103931

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Wendy Anthony

Proposal too large (7.5x bigger than existing settlement).
This historical village attracts many visitors from urban areas as surrounded by green belt, encouraging walkers: improving physical and mental well being. An urban sprawl from Solihull would ruin for future generations.
Limited facilities currently: no gas, no mains drainage, overhead power cables, so power cuts. Mobile signals poor. Few pavements, many single track lanes, low railway bridge & ancient, weak canal bridges.
Virtually no employment opportunities so new residents would drive to work: more traffic and pollution. Building would destroy woodland habitats, ancient hedgerows, vintage trees and ancient ridge meadows.



.

No

Representation ID: 103978

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Camille Newton

This is a completely inappropriate site for development - it covers a very important area for wildlife and habitats. There are a number of meadows of County importance (Local Wildlife Sites and potential Local Wildlife Sites) included in this area as well as being next to one of the counties most important Ancient Woodlands and the sensitive landscape of the National Trust property at Baddesley Clinton. An assessment of this area in terms of its importance for nature conservation should have been carried out prior to its inclusion in the plan.

No

Representation ID: 104011

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Rhoderic Nicol

This proposal is inappropriate considering the size of the 2 existing neighbouring communities. The facilities and infrastructure in Rowington is minimal. The Doctors' surgery and Primary School in Kingswood are already at capacity and not in premises which are easily scalable. Although there is a Railway Station services are infrequent particularly during outside peak hours. Community sports facilities are limited to 2 cricket clubs.

No

Representation ID: 104144

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Clare Kimpton

This area is already inadequately served by the existing infrastructure.
There is no gas yet the electricity is not infrequently affected by power cuts
Buses are infrequent not even daily and give only very limited time in a neighbouring town. Use of trains needs careful planning and Lapworth station can’t be accessed by anyone with mobility issues
Multiple canal bridges and a low railway bridge cause problems already to larger vehicles and the roads are used by cyclists, walkers and horses as well as domestic vehicles
The canal conservation area passes through this area, Kingswood junction is crucial to network

No

Representation ID: 104176

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural England - Warwickshire

C1 Land south of Kingswood: This is open countryside between Kingswood (Lapworth Parish) and Rowington Green (Rowington Parish). The two canals, Grand Union (a linear Conservation Area) and Stratford, run through as does the Leamington-Birmingham main line. The M40 is to the west.
The location is not sustainable. There are no main roads, shops or services in the general area. There is no access to the M40 and the one station, Lapworth, is 1.5-2km to the north. The canals make the area of recreational value which urbanisation would damage. Local roads are not suitable for more traffic.

No

Representation ID: 104302

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: South Warwickshire Foundation trust

As this development is on green belt land, we would not support this site as a priority for development, unless there were significant steps taken to avoid or mitigate any loss of biodiversity and carbon sequestration/climate change mitigation.

This site does not have close access to an existing community healthcare property and will therefore require more significant infrastructure investment to support sufficient provision of out of hospital services for any significant size of development.

No

Representation ID: 104380

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ira Goldsmith

In this Green Belt, Kingswood is an important heritage canal site known for its beautiful country side, stunning views and enjoyed by many many visitors for leisure, cycling, walking and canal based activities. T
The proposed site is adjacent to the National Trust property, Badesley Clinton, which is a very popular historic site surrounded by a beautiful green English countryside.
These Green Belt areas have narrow roads and development at these sites will lead to traffic congestion, air and noise pollution, destruction of habitat, and deprive the residents and many many visitors access to nature and the diverse ecosystem.

No

Representation ID: 104481

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs june Goldsmith

This site very to close to national trust property Badersley Clinton this is a very important heritage site set in beautiful countryside and visited by thousands of people from Britain and overseas
This site contains a section of historic canal used by many people for outdoor excercise and leisure which contribute to mental and physical well being
It is very unsuitable for development
If we are aiming for a beautiful Warwickshire development here would be a tragedy

No

Representation ID: 104570

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Tracey Calcuty

Infrastructure is not suitable. Roads in this area are not suitable for the increase in traffic that would come from this development.
Loss of agricultural land and green belt
The diverse wildlife in the area is at risk from this development