No

Representation ID: 85976

Received: 10/01/2025

Respondent: Graham Ball

With a sustainable land supply, continual new settlements are not sustainable, therefore it should not happen. Moreover, the fertility rate in the UK is less than 2 therefore there is no need for new development in the UK.

No

Representation ID: 85983

Received: 11/01/2025

Respondent: Miss Rebecca England

There has been too much development around Leamington, other locations should be explored instead

No

Representation ID: 85985

Received: 11/01/2025

Respondent: Miss Rebecca England

There has been too much development around Leamington, other locations should be explored instead

No

Representation ID: 86218

Received: 15/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Linda Dane

Development should not cross the M40. It creates a bad precedent. Existing developments west of Leamington Spa lack many amenities such as meeting places, public houses, local shops and services. They also rely on SUDs sites, many of which are not wild life friendly. These SUD sites are rarely properly maintained.

The effect on Wellesbourne and surrounding villages if this land was developed would very detrimental, in particular traffic along the Newbold Road. Any such development should include road improvements, action on regular flooding along the route and a roundabout or traffic lights at the junction with Kineton Road.

Yes

Representation ID: 86429

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Daphne Tilley

Adjacent M40 with prospect of an improved junction as already mentioned in the report. Adjacent SGAs would provide employment. Connectivity by bus to a new Road Rail interchange would be achievable reducing car journeys. A compact site in a non Green Belt location is much preferable to losing good agricultural land in the Green Belt.

Yes

Representation ID: 86430

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Daphne Tilley

Adjacent M40 with proposed new Junction and adjacent SGSs providing employment. Access to our major railway station, Leamington Spa, where Road/Rail interchange would be created, significantly reduces impact on neighbouring road infrastructure in South Warwickshire. Developed with X2 would localise development and make deliverabilty more sustainable.

No

Representation ID: 86476

Received: 26/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Gail Northwood

On the basis of congestion, pollution and permanent damage to our woodlands and rural areas including ancient trees.

Yes

Representation ID: 86579

Received: 28/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Bridgewater

If new developments are to go anywhere, they should be adjacent to existing developments, as this is

No

Representation ID: 86739

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Linda Dane

No development should be allowed to the west of the M40 in order to preserve separation between settlements. Also, development on the site will introduce overwhelming pressure on the Newbold Road and severe congestion in Wellesbourne village centre. Any increase in traffic along this road needs to be accompanied by a roundabout or traffic lights at the junction with Kineton Road. Traffic jams occur daily already.

Yes

Representation ID: 86773

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Mr russell gillott

sensible expansion of what's there already

Yes

Representation ID: 86776

Received: 29/01/2025

Respondent: Mr russell gillott

sensible expansion of what's there already

No

Representation ID: 86980

Received: 01/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Rohit Auluck

As local residents on hareway lane this new settlement will severely affect the surrounding ecology as well as have a major impact to the road infrastructure. In addition, having such settlement so close to the M40 motorway does not seem suitable from a noise and pollution perspective. Having lived in old and brand new properties we fully understand the need for housing moving forwards but believe this site’s suitability is far less than others.

No

Representation ID: 87153

Received: 05/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jan Wood

This site is simply not in an area that can cope with the amount of traffic it would generate.

No

Representation ID: 87160

Received: 05/02/2025

Respondent: Mr William Barber

As a resident of Barford, I've been walking the lanes and fields of the proposed site every weekday morning for the last 15 years. I am therefore objecting on the basis that it is a valuable area of green belt which must be preserved in character, and one in which I regularly witness wildlife on the GB Red List for conservation. This includes yellowhammers, fieldfares, skylarks and starlings, plus many on the Amber list including kestrels, wrens, dunnocks and whitethroats. Brown hares also live in the hedgerows and give Hareway Lane its name, which this settlement would destroy forever.

No

Representation ID: 87198

Received: 06/02/2025

Respondent: Mr R M Boorman

This is prime agricultural land which should not be lost to building development. We need to preserve some agricultural land to grow the crops for now and future generations. It is also beautiful green belt countryside with a rich variety of plant and animal species.

No

Representation ID: 87476

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: John Murphy

This proposal is far too invasive - it takes valuable open countryside and contributes massively to "URBAN SPRAWL" and destroys the rural setting and character of villages such as Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton - quiet country lanes such as Wasperton Lane and Hareway Lane will become major thoroughfares... Southward drift from Leamington should be limited to N of A41/A4100 and East of A46 - it should certainly not cross the M40 corridor, which should be regarded as a RED LINE.

Yes

Representation ID: 87550

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: mrs susan morris

Suitable site - new settlement gives the opportunity of building all the infrastructure needed for a 10 minute neighbourhood

No

Representation ID: 87632

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Grey

Loss of walking and open space amenity for local residents, especially of Barford and newly built developments.
Loss of high-grade farm land.
There has already been excessive development to the south of Warwick.
Not near a rail station so encouraging further car use.

Yes

Representation ID: 87656

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Enness

Road connections make this an ideal site for a new settlement.

No

Representation ID: 87819

Received: 11/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Mandy Woodward

the plan to include the widening of both Wasperton Lane is not suitable the lane isn't able to cope with two way traffic all the way down. This will create more traffic using the lane and make Duguard and Sandy Way virtually impossible to get out of. Parking on the road is out of control the yellow markings are making no difference. It is an accident waiting to happen

No

Representation ID: 87913

Received: 12/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Adam Ellerington

The area is not close to established infrastructure (poor road and public transport availability). There are few nearby established settlements for local employment or economic opportunities. This creates car dependency and is not aligned with sustainable travel aims.

No

Representation ID: 88077

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Sarah Vaughan

The close neighbouring sites to this location have already or are in development. An extension to this would create urban sprawl and threaten boundaries of local independent villages. Too much landscape and country side would be lost and alongside the proposed Barford quarry and all the solar farms there would be barely any green spaces left for biodiversity. Loss of local habitat with limited wildlife corridors would have a detrimental effect on the Warwickshire landscape. The maps in this consultation should clearly show the proposed solar farms and they do not.

No

Representation ID: 88125

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anne Parry

Major traffic impact with development of University of Warwick Innovation Campus, impact on A429 and proposals for gravel extraction at Wasperton - NOT SUITABLE - major impact on the village of Wellesbourne, Barford and Bishops Tachbrook.

No

Representation ID: 88218

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Vincent Hall

This area is south of the M40 and represents a major step towards urban areas like Warwick 'swallowing up' villages like Barford.
Even with road improvements, the effect on traffic through Barford and Sherborne would surely be unsustainable.
I am very surprised that this kind of plan can be developed independently of other local plans, such as the Minerals Plan which is proposing a massive quarry within yards of this site. It shows little joined up thinking.
Barford would disappear as a village entity.

No

Representation ID: 88235

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Paul Wotton

Long bridge island is very congested at peak times and the A429 is also impacted by the volume traffic .It is quite noticeable that the volume of vehicles using this area has increased significantly in the last few years.
Vicarage lane and watery lane are often used by motorists as Rat runs to avoid the long bridge island.
The development being considered would seriously impact the safety and wellbeing of pedestrians, local residents. With significant pollution, infrastructure, and climate change.
This development will also take valuable Green space.

No

Representation ID: 88269

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Juliet Bates

I am concerned about the proposals for developments near the M40, as there seems to be inadequate consideration for the necessary facilities to support residents and increased traffic. From my experience as a nurse, I know that local services are already overwhelmed, with insufficient hospital beds and stretched emergency services. There is a shortage of GP appointments, unreliable bus services, and a lack of school places and teachers. I believe we need to prioritise infrastructure improvements before expanding developments, and I cannot support these proposals until that happens.

No

Representation ID: 88452

Received: 15/02/2025

Respondent: Holly Hiorns

Massive negative impact on the natural landscape in the area. Right next to a 16th century woodland that is already being ruined by excessive footfall. Building on productive agricultural land that has in the past received government money for being organic, laying hedges & improving the environment to all be ripped out of built on. Putting more pressure on services that can’t already cope. Road infrastructure either side isn’t good enough, already considerable congestion through Wellesbourne.

Yes

Representation ID: 88547

Received: 16/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sidney Syson

Yes, again provided adequate infrastructue is provided to coincide with the occupation of the initial part of the development, including adequate transport facilities.

Yes

Representation ID: 88611

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ida Marjorie Brown

Good location given its chosen area and excellent infrastructure.

Yes

Representation ID: 88689

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Browne

This land is not designated green belt land.