No

Representation ID: 101734

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: 101744

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: 101799

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: 101981

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Gaydon Parish Council

The reduction in the amount of agricultural land
Additional traffic flow leading to an increase in air and noise pollution
Extra lighting resulting in light pollution
Need for a detailed plan in the event of adverse weather for how the village will be protected from flooding
No availability of sustainable transport links including no public railway
Utility infrastructure is lacking

No

Representation ID: 102269

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Niall Shimmin

Will overload existing infrastructure.
Road network not suitable.
No amenities.
Poor public transport links.

No

Representation ID: 102550

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Jaguar Land Rover

Agent: Marrons

Potential New Settlement G1, land west of Knightcote, is located adjacent to the Strategic Road Network (SRN) and near to JLR Gaydon and SG13. If G1 is to be allocated, it would generate a significant demand for movement which should be considered in combination with SG13. The required supporting transport infrastructure should be provided to support G1 without adversely affecting the operations of JLR. They therefore request that they are involved in the scope and development of the Strategic Transport Assessment and have the opportunity to input as appropriate.

No

Representation ID: 102766

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?

No

Representation ID: 102769

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Martin Phelps

This new settlement area is not proportionate in scale, severely detrimental to the character of the landscape and the environment of the historical villages of Gaydon, Northend and Knightcote. As there are no rail links, the proposed development area would entirely be dependent on the already overloaded and congested road network.

Yes

Representation ID: 102888

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jem Brown

Agree this is a less suitable option. The site is very rural with no infrastructure. It is within 1.25km of River Itchen SSSI and contains Knightcote Bottoms Local Wildlife Site (LWS) and Bowcutt’s Covert potential LWS

Other

Representation ID: 103062

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. Network constraints as distance to nearest available WWTW with available capacity is 2.5km, therefore significant infrastructure upgrades are required and there are significant costs associated with this. Overall this development site is considered a 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: 103173

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Karen Ellis

Knightcote: a hamlet, remote in quality; a unique character. I chose to live here because I don't want to be in a town or new settlement. Knightcote enjoys a level of tranquility despite local development which has already happened. Loss of rural life; massive encroachment onto green field sites which are already under pressure. The effect on wildlife and habitats, always under pressure, would be catastrophic.
Burton Dassett Country Park is a Special Landscape Area. There will be deliterious impact if a development is built practically at the foot of it; traffic - discord with Climate Change Net Zero policies

No

Representation ID: 103247

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: 103477

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Giles Harrison-Hall

This area is agricultural land. It is not close enough to the rail network to enable people to rely solely on public transport. A development here would harm aspects of the Council’s Visions. The local infrastructure would not cope. Without also providing employment in that area, the commuting to and from the site would have a negative impact on the carbon footprint. On a proper analysis a development here is unlikely to be sustainable..

No

Representation ID: 103600

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Aimee Capelett

I strongly oppose this development due to massive encroachment on the greenbelt, overdevelopment near Gaydon, and destruction of stunning views from BurtonDassettHills. It threatens rural life, removes vital farmland, and destroys wildlife habitats. Area lacks essential infrastructure, including retail, schools, doctors, hospitals, public transport. Increased traffic and congestion on rural roads endangers pedestrians and cyclists. Motorways already overburdened due to overdevelopment and heavy JLR traffic. Proximity to Kineton’s defence munitions site raises serious security concerns. Water, sewage, gas, and electricity networks will be overwhelmed. This development disregards the rural lifestyle and should be reconsidered to protect our countryside and community.

No

Representation ID: 103656

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ben Roberts

I strongly object to the proposed development due to its excessive encroachment on the greenbelt and overexpansion near Gaydon. It will ruin views from Burton Dassett Hills, destroy wildlife habitats, and threaten rural life by removing farmland. The area lacks essential infrastructure, including shops, schools, medical services, and public transport. Increased traffic will endanger pedestrians and cyclists, while motorways are already congested due to overdevelopment and heavy JLR traffic. Water, sewage, gas, and electricity networks will be strained, and proximity to Kineton’s defence munitions raises security concerns. This development is unsustainable and must be reconsidered.

Yes

Representation ID: 103892

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Amarjit Gill

This site would provide suitable space for a new development without impacting Stratford.

No

Representation ID: 103934

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Alexandra Hibbert

I object to this development. It conflicts with National Planning Policy Framework which prioritises protecting the intrinsic character and beauty of rural areas. The site is outside defined settlement boundaries and adjoining historic villages of Knightcote/Northend would be lost. The M40 junction and surrounding network would not cope with the additional traffic this would create due to the proximity to JLR. This would threaten the infrastructure and jobs in the whole area. The land is good quality arable and food security would be threatened. The road is prone to flooding. Views from and to the Burton Dassett public park destroyed.

Yes

Representation ID: 104127

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Nicola Sawle

non greenbelt within the M40 corridor

Other

Representation ID: 104215

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr ROLAND CHERRY

Many houses have already been built in the Gaydon area and I suspect enough already to satisfy local employers JLR and AML, but people will have access to J12 of the M40 to commute south to Banbury and north to Leamington and Coventry, but the danger remains that the character of local Warwickshire villages will be blighted forever and biodiversity will also suffer. In conclusion this is an appropriate area for some additional housing within moderation, and that judgement needs to be made within the wider ambitions of the SWLP. It is noticeable there are few local services currently available.

No

Representation ID: 104239

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Pavey

I do not agree because:
1. Road network is unsuitable for the likely vehicle volume. e.g. Knightcote Bottoms to name one.
2. Areas has already been hit be Solar Farm.
3. Arable and Livestock farmland removal.
4. negative impact on flora and fauna in prime farmland (Breeding Owls, Deer etc).
5. Negtaive impact on Feldon Valley from Burton Dassett view point.
6. Negative environmental impact of development (utiities, and associated infrastructure.
7. Negative impact on Gaydon J12 of Motorway (excessive volume of vehicles exceeding design capacity).
8. Over development of area (Lighthorn Heath in place)
9. No railway.

Other

Representation ID: 104306

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: South Warwickshire Foundation trust

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: 104389

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Sally Shaw

Negative impact on already overstretched resources, doctors surgeries; schools. Spoiling the countryside and negative impact on wildlife; area has already had fair share of housing developments

No

Representation ID: 104437

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural England - Warwickshire

G1 West of Knightcote: new settlement proposals in the Felden area east and southeast of Leamington are in open countryside, would use valuable farmland (some BMV), are not near any large towns, and are not sustainable development. Proximity to the Banbury-Leamington (London-Birmingham) main line do not make such locations sustainable. No new stations are likely to be agreed; the line's capacity is used by fast passenger trains and intermodal and other freight trains. G1 location should not be pursued.

No

Representation ID: 104794

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Alice Burton

I disagree with this land being considered for building houses.. the view from the burton Dassett hills would be ruined for everyone. The land is unsuitable as it floods and there is no infrastructure for more housing. No shop, school etc.

Yes

Representation ID: 104935

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Charlotte Edwards

I support the proposal to develop the land around Knightcote. Proximity to Jaguar Land Rover's Gaydon Engineering site means that development in this area would bring employment opportunities for new residents and new workers for JLR.
JLR is one of the largest employers in the West Midlands region and has committed to keeping engineering in the UK.
Using this as a focal point for development would ensure sustainability, employment and economic growth in the area.

No

Representation ID: 104975

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Christopher Ellis

Proposed site G1 is not aligned with Strategic Objectives.

Existing road and rail infrastructure cannot support the new housing.

M40J12 and access road (Knightcote Bottoms) to M40J12 would not cope with the traffic increase.

The views to/from the Burton Dassett Country Park, a 'Special Landscape Area', would be seriously damaged.

Knightcote would not be a peaceful, remote village, which would have detrimental effect on the well-being/health of existing residents, as would the increase in traffic.

Site is prone to flooding. This could not be mitigated, and therefore flooding events will increase.

The new housing would destroy local habitats and wildlife.

Yes

Representation ID: 105039

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Oliver Edwards

This would be an excellent location for a new settlement due to the proximity to transport links such as the M40 and also major employment areas in JLR Gaydon as well as Aston Martin.

Yes

Representation ID: 105053

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Bothamley

I consider this proposed site to be a more preferable location as it is not in Greenbelt land which should be protected and is close to the M40 but would not put additional strain onto the A46/M40 which is already at breaking point before the Union View and Kenilworth developments are complete

Yes

Representation ID: 105083

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Emma Gurdag

not in Green Belt, proximity to existing new developments and industrial/employment centres, better existing infrastructure and new infrastructure already planned.

No

Representation ID: 105250

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

G1 – Land west of Knightcote – OBJECT - capacity 5360 homes: too close to GLH, urbanising area and causing harm to character of landscape, lack of rail connectivity