No

Representation ID: 99587

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

My reasons are primarily that it is not in conformance with Strategic Objectives of the SWLP, with which I broadly agree. I reference those specific objectives. Furthermore, this area of land is scheduled to have a large solar farm built on it - Middle Road Solar Farm.

No

Representation ID: 99681

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Wesley Payne

I don't feel that area F1 is suitable because of the following reasons: Inadequate roads already and lack of public transport links. There is nowhere local to shop . The land is hilly and beautiful, making building difficult and an eyesore. There is also the issue of where will these people work? There are no shops or employment nearer than Southam or Leamington and there is already enough traffic to these places as it is. Proximity to landfill will make these homes less desirable also. There must be other more suitable brownfield land for redevelopment. Also water drainage

Yes

Representation ID: 99703

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Delve

Under the National planning policy framework (NPPF) 2024 (see paragraph 144) it states development on green belt is only permitted where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced are justified. On the basis that 46,500 homes are available via 7 of the proposed new settlement sites (E1, F1, F2, F3, G1, X1 and X2) which aren’t on green belt land. Therefore these should take preference to all other new settlement locations.

No

Representation ID: 99709

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Anna Kuchko

Infrastructure is lacking in the area and would require years of development to bring it to the level suitable to accommodate the amount of people that would populate the area of this site is chosen. This would bring the area into a state of disaster for years.

Yes

Representation ID: 99898

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Simone Delve

Under the National planning policy framework (NPPF) 2024 (see paragraph 144) states development on green belt is only permitted where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced are justified. On the basis that 46,500 homes are available via 7 of the other proposed new settlement sites (E1, F1, F2, F3, G1, X1 and X2) that are not in greenbelt these should be prioritised and supported above all other proposed settlements.

No

Representation ID: 99997

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Cooper

Housing covering productive fields to be occupied by commuters into local towns seeking employment.

Yes

Representation ID: 100115

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

NA

No

Representation ID: 100194

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lorraine Grocott

NA

Yes

Representation ID: 100769

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Doug Wallace

N/A

No

Representation ID: 100879

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Simon Collyer

Road transport/ connectivity in this area, and public transport links are not good enough in this area.

Yes

Representation ID: 101047

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.

No

Representation ID: 101066

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Adrian Summers on behalf of the Summers Family

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

No call for sites submission. Why is it included?

No

Representation ID: 101273

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Pauline James

This development would be between Ufton and Whitnash and represents an urban sprawl and a waste of land resources. The fields are productive arable land that should not be wasted. F1, F2 and F3 would overload the lanes with traffic - and to redevelop them would lose the biodiverse trees, hedges and verges.

SG 10 and SG 9 would provide enough land to provide housing if built at 160 dwellings per hectare. This could achieve 8000 dwellings in 50 hectares including roads and open spaces. This suits 20-40 year olds in their early career.

No

Representation ID: 101537

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 widlife sites at Long Itchington and Ufton Woods SSSI.

No

Representation ID: 101737

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs MIchele Gill

That area has already had large scale development with minimal increase in infrastructure to support it. It needs no more.

No

Representation ID: 101740

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs MIchele Gill

That area has already had large scale development with minimal increase in infrastructure to support it. It needs no more.

No

Representation ID: 101791

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Grevayne Properties Limited

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

No call for sites submissions. Why is it included?

No

Representation ID: 102246

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Niall Shimmin

Will overload existing infrastructure.

No

Representation ID: 102699

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Judy Steele

site is in open countryside in a valued Warwickshire landscape. Access to Leamington would produce severe traffic congestion especially in Radford Semele

No

Representation ID: 102712

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Judy Steele

Development would cause severe traffic congestion in Radford Semele and Leamington and would impinge on open countryside - we little enough left as it is

No

Representation ID: 102760

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Summers Holdings Ltd

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

It does not contain any Call for Sites submissions - why is it included?

Yes

Representation ID: 102835

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jem Brown

I agree this site is less suitable. Although it has fewer distinctive habitats than F2, F3 and G3 it is a large rural (agricultural) area below an escarpment (so would be highly visible). It has some infrastructure A425 and B4455 (Fosse Way) but it is within 0.5km of Harbury Cutting SSSI and cuts into the “Land adjacent to SSSI” potential Local Wildlife Site.

Other

Representation ID: 103030

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Severn Trent Water

This development site will likely require treatment at Itchen Bank (STW) Treatment Works, this Wastewater Treatment works has medium capacity and very 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: 103238

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Summers Family

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

It does not contain any Call for Sites submissions - why is it included?

No

Representation ID: 103435

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Chesterton and Kingston Parish Meeting

This site along the Fosse Way is not a suitable site for development. There is no railway station in the immediate area. The Fosse Way is a single carriageway road in an archaeological sensitive area. The land is prone to flooding and is low lying. The land is currently a mixture of agricultural, solar power provision and intensive herbiculture. It is not suitable for housing development

No

Representation ID: 103743

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Carter

By prioritising sustainable, non-Green Belt sites, housing can be delivered responsibly—without destroying the countryside, harming biodiversity, or overwhelming local services.

No

Representation ID: 104288

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural England - Warwickshire

F1 Land west of Ufton: This is a rural landscape east of the Fosse Way, a bowl of open countryside in which any major development would be prominent, notably from Ufton. It would not be sustainable development, being dependent on car use. Traffic to/from Leamington Spa would create congestion and dangers to road safey in Radford Semele. To the east, Ufton would be congested with additional traffic., Loss of farmland (366 ha) would be serious. F1 should not be pursued.

Yes

Representation ID: 104621

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Amy Bambridge

It makes sense to develop around Leamington, which affords easier transport access to shops, recreation and hospitals. Leamington town centre is also in desperate need of economic rejuvenation.

No

Representation ID: 104875

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Barbara Looney

Recently planning permission given for large solar farm on same site - how ridiculous! How could SDC not know. This land rises steeply including an escarpment of nearly 200ft which could not be built on. Education provision would be difficult to impossible in the area before new schools could be built. Access to the site only possible from the Fosse Way and Ufton HIll. Both are very busy and dangerous and could not accommodate a significant increase in traffic.

No

Representation ID: 105020

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Julia Dimambro

Already too much traffic along the A425 and Fosse Way