Other

Representation ID: 88713

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Jerry Corless

N/A

No

Representation ID: 88754

Received: 17/02/2025

Respondent: John Ciriani

The area would join up existing areas and make the quality of life worse for all concerned . We do not want to live in a city or sprawling urban area.

Yes

Representation ID: 88926

Received: 18/02/2025

Respondent: Mr James Nicholls

This site has multiple challenges facing it, and wouldn't be a practical choice for a new collection of houses. Access to it is on a narrow country lane and a narrow farm lane, surrounded on all sides by a working farm. Over and above this, I don't think the local infrastructure is sufficient for new houses. We have semi-regular power cuts in nearby Dugard Place, and electricity infrastructure isn't enough to feed in solar generation. Broadband is sub 40Mbps in our area. Water and waste supplies have been the subject of many recent repair works by Severn Trent Water.

No

Representation ID: 88929

Received: 18/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Joanne Bailey

It is already difficult to be able to access the B4100 from the B4087 & regularly queuing on the A429 beyond Barford from the Warwick roundabout adding to this both with proposed new settlement, and possible new gravel site & UoW Innovation campus development already in discussion - it would become an absolute nightmare.
Lack of rail connectivity would not assist.
Yet further urbanisation of villages when already options to extend existing urban developments in existence.
Loss of good quality land.

Yes

Representation ID: 88944

Received: 18/02/2025

Respondent: Mr STEVEN BLIWERT

This area is more appropriate from an infrastructure point of view particularly transport infrastructure.

Yes

Representation ID: 88982

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Robert Eynon

Its proximity to key roads and the greater options for infrastructure developments in leamington versus Warwick/Hatton make this a more suitable solution

No

Representation ID: 88996

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Stratford upon Avon District Council

The gap between Wellesbourne and Leamington is extremely important. This settlement particularly if it was implemented with SG9 and 10 would extend Leamington southwards to an unacceptable degree.
If a new motorway junction is to be produced associated with this settlement it should have no connection south west of the motorway. This would only introduce more traffic towards Wellesbourne. A link road from here to Stratford would be expensive, intrusive and completely undesirable. Much better to improve Longbridge still further and upgrade the A46 westwards.

No

Representation ID: 89051

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Alison Lusty

Summary of severe adverse effects on the local area (see detailed comments):
• Loss of significant residential and locality amenity.
• Loss of character of this area of South Warwickshire.
• Effective creation of a suburban fringe leading to loss of existing strong communities and destroying the character of villages.
• Over-development in an area that is already experiencing pressure on the highways infrastructure.
• Lack of public transport options in the area.
• Highways (A425, A452, A429) are already unable to cope with current levels of traffic.
• Local infrastructure is already stretched.

Yes

Representation ID: 89084

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: Alison Walker

Area provides good road connections, especially with the proposed new access to the M42. The proposal does not seek to subsume existing smaller settlements and is therefore consistent with planning policy

No

Representation ID: 89308

Received: 19/02/2025

Respondent: L B

A New Settlement here would create a massive increase in traffic on surrounding road which are already busy. It would merge in with all the existing developments around Warwick and Leamington and become a huge urban area without countryside. The proposed quarry by Barford will increase traffic congestion without further development in this area. Barford and Wellesbourne risk becoming part of Warwick and Leamington urbanisation.

No

Representation ID: 89340

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Sarah Vaughan

Traffic would be the main issue here as the current road infrastructure is already unable to cope with the new developments taking place at Warwick Gates.

No

Representation ID: 89343

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Sarah Vaughan

Barford only has one public footpath for access to the countryside and it is a dead end. The proposed residential site 712 for 80 houses will take away the one and only footpath residents have access to. Any proposed infill sites and extended developments into the surrounding countryside MUST include new footpaths and new access to the remaining countryside. I would like to see a proposal to introduce more access and public footpaths to green spaces.

No

Representation ID: 89378

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Allan Murdoch

I do not agree for the following reasons: Loss of valuable agricultural land, Will create serious congestion aroiund Warwick and Leamington. Both towns are already badly congested and any further develoment will create major traffic chaos at peak times. It is already designated as an area of particular beauty. The area has an abundance of wild life such as badgers, newts, fallow deer, owls. sparrow hawks, buzzards.
The development will add to the pollution in this area.

No

Representation ID: 89381

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Murdoch

The congestion caused by such a development would bring traffic chaos during peak traffic times, e.g school times, start and end of working day. Prime agricultural land would be destroyed. Variety of wildlife, including badgers, owls, buzzards newts, etc., etc. would be disturbed. Historic trees would have to be removed. Pollution levels caused by extra vehicle traffic would rise.

Yes

Representation ID: 89544

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Emily Carleton

Non greenbelt so yes it's fine

No

Representation ID: 89971

Received: 22/02/2025

Respondent: Ray Bradshaw

Completely out of proportion. Proposed X1 site is bigger than Wellesbourne!

Yes

Representation ID: 90168

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Hugh Darwen

Together with site X2, I believe this non-green belt area would be suitable for the development of a new settlement. The motorway is close by and there could be provision for a new junction. There is also room for building the necessary new hospital and schools. Nearby Leamington Spa railway station can be rebuilt or refurbished as needed. Building on X1 and X2 would minimise the impact on the character and biodiversity of south Warwickshire, compared with some other sites that have been offered.

Yes

Representation ID: 90307

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Elisabeth Darwen

Development at location X1 together with X2 is likely to result in less of a negative impact on South Warwickshire than would occur with the development of many of the other sites proposed. Access to the motorway network with room for a new junction possible. Close to Leamington Spa Station. Space for houses, schools and a new hospital.

No

Representation ID: 90329

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Hedley Cooper

X1 combined with SG09 and SG10 would be the first major development south of the M40, which is a natural barrier to the urban sprawl of Warwick and Leamington. If this takes place the undulating rural landscape will be destroyed, and over time it will be inevitable that Barford become encompassed by the Warwick/Leamington conurbation changing the nature of this part of South Warwickshire which should be resisted and removed form the local plan.

Yes

Representation ID: 90532

Received: 23/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Neal Soutter

If we need to build the number of houses put forward by the government then X1 is in a better location for development due to its close proximity to M40 junctions and Leamington. It also has the advantage of not being Green Belt.

Other

Representation ID: 90616

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Ben Ranner

Whilst broadly in favor of the settlements approach, this option cannot provide affordable housing with good transport facilities, being as it is entirely reliant on cars for access to services, employment and education (strategic objective 2). The lack of provision of access to rail or to active travel options prevents anything but powered transportation, but this is hampered by a lack of road network to take drivers south from the X1 development (strategic objective 3).

Further concerns are around encroachment on rural communities (strategic objective 5), surface water flooding and impediment of the landscape and natural environment (strategic objectives 7&8)

Yes

Representation ID: 90639

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Alice Smith

Wellesbourne is the perfect brownfield site for inclusion in the SWLP preferred options.

No

Representation ID: 90666

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Ellie Lees

Inappropriate development within the green belt. It seems ridiculous to have a green belt if that doesn't mean anything! There's not enough consideration to public services either and how this will impact everyone else. It's hard enough to get a GP appointment as it is.

Yes

Representation ID: 90710

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Averil Stewart

keep new development close to road infrastructure opportunites like motorways is far more sensible

Yes

Representation ID: 90739

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr James Edge

Development would benefit from all the road improvements which have taken place on Europa way.

No

Representation ID: 90742

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Lori Herbert

I wish to formally object to the proposals for sites SG09, SG10, and X1. I have significant concerns about flooding due to developments on floodplain land, particularly impacting Barford and Wasperton villages. Expanding beyond the M40 threatens the character of historic villages and may lead to overdevelopment. Additionally, I oppose the loss of greenbelt land and the focus on larger housing over affordable options, often bought by investors rather than locals. Infrastructure, including road access and community facilities, must be prioritised before any further development. Without these considerations, I cannot support the proposed developments

No

Representation ID: 90784

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Bond

I object to the proposed site X1, east of Barford on several grounds;

This is inappropriate development in the Green Belt on a large scale which will have a detrimental impact on the village of Barford. There would be no or insufficient infrastructure such as a Doctor’s surgery, shops, or schools.

It would have a big impact on local traffic with the volume of additional traffic accessing an already busy Barford bypass. If the gravel extraction project goes ahead on an adjacent site the effect on local traffic with lorry movements would give major safety and traffic management problems.

No

Representation ID: 90789

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Maxine Mayer

Much of the land required will never be put forward. There are huge numbers of land owners and house owners that would be required to secure access and it needs an upgrade to J14 of M40. The site has been incorrectly risk assessed - documentation will be sent separately. It will adversely affect the Barford conservation area, the site is a high flood risk, environmentally very sensitive and the sand and gravel will need to be extracted. The site is BMV and currently in food production.

No

Representation ID: 90873

Received: 24/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Keir Greenwood

The first question only gives answers but not the question. Yes/no/other what?

I cannot support this application.Barford is a small village which already suffers from too much traffic at too high a speed. The increase in traffic volume and noise generated by this many houses close by will erode the peace in the village and as a resident on the high Street, the noise will be disruptive. We have a toddler and a construction site so close to the village will pollute local air quality whilst putting pressure on limited local services.

Yes

Representation ID: 91070

Received: 25/02/2025

Respondent: Julian Brown

Yes, ideal location to take some of the pressure from Leamington and Warwick for housing whilst providing new settlement and new outdoors for people. Good location for serving numerous business hubs