No

Representation ID: 95441

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gordon Ashley

This area already overdeveloped with recent additions. Road structure cannot take more traffic. road from Bishops to M40 already over capacity particularly early & late in the day. GP surgeries in area already over subscribed & difficult to get appointments. Lack of hospital capacity in surrounding area. Area is being urbanized & loss of charter of landscape.
No rail connections. Local services such as water & sewerage already under pressure with regular flooding.
Local schools under pressure. Impact on current residents of visual appearance of area.

Yes

Representation ID: 95463

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Molloy

Better to put an isolated hole in the Green Belt near transport links than induce sprawl of larger towns towards each other.

No

Representation ID: 95596

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Bishops Itchington Parish Council

Poor for public transport and active travel.
Poor local road network.
Local schools oversubscribed.
Part of the site is subject to frequent flooding.
Infrastructure inadequate regarding domestic water supply.
See attachment for more information in section F2

Yes

Representation ID: 95648

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Clarke

Potential for a new railway station

No

Representation ID: 95825

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

I do not agree with this site being included in the plan. My reasons are primarily that it is not in conformance with Strategic Objectives of the SWLP, with which I broadly agree.

No

Representation ID: 96070

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Joanna Taylor

It is not clear how this proposal would meet the requirements for a new settlement. For example provide most of the day to day needs within the settlement. Currently there are insufficient facilities in the dippers Bridge, Bishops Itchington, Harbury area to meet the needs in terms of doctors, schools, shops, leisure activities. Meaning that residents have to go to Southam. The settlement would likely be the size that Southam was a few years ago before the extensive building there. It is not clear how this would fit into the site as the mainline train also runs through this area.

No

Representation ID: 96289

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Southam Town Council

We agree that this site is less suitable.

No

Representation ID: 96291

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Matthew Burns

This site will cause massive environmental damage to both the land that it is being built upon as well as in Bishop's Itchington, which will be turned into a cut through for anyone building and living in the new settlement. Should you build a new bypass for Bishop's Itchington that too will cause significant local harm. Please invest in somewhere we need, like in our schools, not in a new settlement thatcno one in the local area wants

Yes

Representation ID: 96401

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Bearley Parish Council

The SWLP has 12 sites, 5 of these are Green Belt land and seven are non-Green Belt land. These seven non-Green Belt land sites have room between them for 46,500 dwellings. This includes Deppers Bridge The existence of these sites means that there are no ‘exceptional circumstances’ to develop any Green Belt site.

In order to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework 2024, all for these non-Green Belt sites such as Deppers Bridge should be developed before any Green Belt site.

Yes

Representation ID: 96433

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Bearley Wilmcote Action Group

All non Green Belt sites should be developed first!

Other

Representation ID: 96783

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Alcester Town Council

Alcester Town Council, Arrow with Weethley Parish Council, Kinwarton Parish Council, Wixford Parish Council and Great Alne Parish Council (together referred to as Alcester Parishes Group or ‘APG’) has no comment.

Yes

Representation ID: 96801

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Le Page

Site not in Green Belt

Yes

Representation ID: 96946

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Jeffery

Not in Green Belt

No

Representation ID: 97307

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Carl Holloway

Too Small for Sustainability: At 4,840 dwellings (242 ha), F2 falls short of the 6,000-dwelling minimum needed for a self-sustaining settlement, undermining the SWLP’s vision.
Threat to Biodiversity: Its "Red" rating for high-value habitats risks significant environmental harm, conflicting with biodiversity goals.
Poor Transport Links: Rated "Amber" overall, with no suitable HGV routes, F2 cannot support sustainable connectivity, unlike better-connected sites.
Weak Employment Prospects: Employment potential is "below benchmark" due to access issues, limiting local job opportunities.
Education Challenges: No nearby expandable schools exist, requiring costly new infrastructure and transport, adding complexity.

Yes

Representation ID: 97501

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lisa Donovan

All sites outside the green belt have to be developed first, before green belt sites

No

Representation ID: 97540

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Ellie Salmon

This development will have a significant detrimental impact to biodiversity, heritage sites, rural character, the local community of Southam & BI and associated villages. There has already seen considerable house building in the area. The site lacks all the necessary infrastructure to support such a development. There is no integrated transport infrastructure, no railway station, dependency upon motor vehicles. J12 has become increasingly busy as is the B4451 and associated roads, BI passing traffic often creates congestion and is not designed to handle the requirements from this development. Ancient wood Itchington Holt and is inhabitants will be severely impacted.

Yes

Representation ID: 97816

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Jeffery

N/A

No

Representation ID: 98038

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Joan Barlow

F2 location is not suitable for a new settlement. I have seen this low lying area flood regularly all of my life. Local infrastructure cannot cope with more houses, therefore more cars, roads, schools and medical, water services, constant problems now, approx 500 houses here have been built over the last few years. I have seen new housing estates built on natural flood plains causing flood/insurance issues for homeowners. With climate change more sinkholes, road damage etc likely to occur. Ditches, brooks, rivers, during certain weather conditions, will always flow out to flood plains and the sea, coastal erosion follows

No

Representation ID: 98048

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jake Salmon

This development will have a significant detrimental impact to biodiversity, heritage sites, rural character, the local community of Southam & BI and associated villages. There has already seen considerable house building in the area. The site lacks all the necessary infrastructure to support such a development. There is no integrated transport infrastructure, no railway station, dependancy upon motor vehicles. J12 has become increasingly busy as is the B4451 and associated roads, BI passing traffic often creates congestion and is not designed to handle the requirements from this development. Ancient wood Itchington Holt and is inhabitants will be severely impacted.

No

Representation ID: 98283

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Holly Farm Business Park

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

No Call for Sites submissions. Why is it included?

No

Representation ID: 98339

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr John Liverton

Insufficient infrastructure ie schools, medical & shopping facilities. Also local roads can not take anymore traffic.
Localised flooding of the river at Deppers Bridge needs consideration

No

Representation ID: 98862

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jacqueline West

1. It is considerably below the minimum size for sustainability (and existing map includes land take from conservation area!).
2. Rail access is unlikely
3. Needs major road access to be built BEFORE development to prevent damage to listed buildings in Ladbroke and unsafe use of existing roads nearby
4. Anti-sustainable by taking agricultural land out of food production
5. Damages rather than protects historic setting of Ladbroke and its ability to diversify tourism in South Warwickshire (sustainable, slow tourism away from the hot spots)
6. Damages rather than protects existing natural heritage (landscape, wildlife etc)
7. Flooding issues

No

Representation ID: 98917

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: (1) AG Family Trust 2024 & (2) N. Holdsworth

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

No Call for Sites submissions. Why is it included?

No

Representation ID: 99048

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Keri Bettis

The roads are unsuitable and already over capacity.
Local facilities will be unable to cope with significant extra capacity.
There is already a problem with flooding on the land and surrounding area.
It would be detrimental to the local wildlife, which desperately needs to be looked after.
There are no amenities.
Deppers Bridge already has HS2 and a railway line and housing would be a further blight on the countryside.
There are more suitable sites put forward in the plan that would be sustainable and not on green belt.

No

Representation ID: 99265

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Summers Holdings Ltd

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

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

No

Representation ID: 99431

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Diane Wilson

See previous comments

No

Representation ID: 99491

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Tibbles

The area is completely 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: 99518

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Gillian Padgham

Not sustainable so does not meet with the Strategic Objectives of the Plan. Lack of infrastructure and a clear plan to provide this, lack of employment opportunities.

No

Representation ID: 99605

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

I note that it is annotated as ‘less suitable’ in the consultation. My reasons are primarily that it is not in conformance with Strategic Objectives of the SWLP (S01, So2, S03,S04, S05, S06, S09, S011and S012) with which I broadly agree. I reference those objectives:

Yes

Representation ID: 99706

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.