No

Representation ID: 93270

Received: 01/03/2025

Respondent: John Murphy

This site is unsuitable, except perhaps the portion forming SG09 which may accommodate an M40 intersection.
This site (X1) must not be used to fund this intersection.
Major loss of landscape and environment.
UNDELIVERABLE due to non-willing landowners.
Loss of agricultural land
Impact on villages of Barford, Sherbourne & Wasperton which would be overwhelmed by the proximity of >6000 homes and ensuing traffic.
HIGH PRESSURE GASLINE runs under the site - no other infrastructure present - drainage and sewage probably quite problematic???

Yes

Representation ID: 93305

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Duncan Taylor

It meets the criteria
overlap with Strategic growth locations
not green belt
not close to local nature reserve or SSSI
not in flood zone
close to urban business parks and industrial estates (spatial growth strategy)
Location for employment growth
Good public transport links

Yes

Representation ID: 93367

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Ian Michael Hayes

Development in this area provides acess to the excellent facilities of Leamington Spa and will accommodate the concept of 20 minute neighbourhoods.
The road system is robust, and ties in well to the national motorway network.
Warwick Hospital is already overused, and the are would possibly permit the development of an additional secondary care site.
There is already substantial development in the area.

Yes

Representation ID: 93421

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Teresa Hayes

Already has the infrastructure due to recent development.

Other

Representation ID: 93464

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ingrid Oliver

X1
Traffic in and around Barford would increase on already dangerously busy roads such as Wasperton Lane and the A429.
Construction traffic on these roads for years would increase the danger.
Barford is in a rural area, the nature of which has already been detrimentally altered by nearby enormous housing developments, and together with the proposed quarry, development at Warwick University campus and Wellesbourne airfield would mean significant loss of more countryside in this area. Included in this loss would be mature trees and hedges which are already much reduced and now recognised to be so important for wildlife.

No

Representation ID: 93533

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jon Redhead

This area has been developed enough, and is now showing concern with local congestion, and lack of sustainable need to go further with plans.

No

Representation ID: 93536

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jane Markham

This site is proposed in an area which is in deficit in terms of infrastructure already. The addition of a substantial amount of development, both commercial and residential, would impose an unreasonable burden on resources which are already stretched beyond endurance. The A429, already at standstill and a prime risk for serious accident, simply cannot support the inevitable Public services such as drainage, water supply and electricity capacity are all at risk of breakdown. The plans have not factored in the pending issues associated with the proposed quarry site, which, if permitted, would further aggravate this impossible situation.

No

Representation ID: 93567

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Shelagh Marshall

This site is productive agricultural land, if developed with adjacent sites at SG15 and SG16 plus proposed development of Gravel pits , Warwick University , Elms Farm Solar and proposed Solar Pv sites this would constitute over development.
Wellesbourne would be linked by developments and Solar Pv to leamington an Warwick/ M40.

Yes

Representation ID: 93752

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Christopher Bennett

I feel this (along with SG09/SG10/SG11 and X2) is one of the most suitable sites for housing of all. This is a logical extension to the well established and continued development of South Leamington. It is well supported by the current and additional infrastructure already being provided by this ongoing development including access to the M40 motorway junctions 13 and 14. Housing developments alongside motorway corridors are already established in relation to the M40 as elsewhere nationally and because of the motorway the countryside here, whilst valuable, is less pristine and less ecologically important than other sites under consideration.

No

Representation ID: 93902

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Chris Murphy

The impact on the neighbouring villages of Barford, Sherbourne, Wasperton and Bishops Tachbrook would be overbearing; it would mean the loss of agricultural land; it would have a deleterious effect on flora and fauna and on carbon emissions; it would impact the local landscape and highways, especially on Barford with traffic from the south, meaning Barford would likely become even more of a 'rat'run' and worsening traffic problems at the junctions from the village onto the A429 and the Longbridge M40 J15 roundabout.

No

Representation ID: 93997

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Sarah THOMAS

Fail key NPPF tests, particularly in transport accessibility, infrastructure provision, and realistic deliverability.

Yes

Representation ID: 94016

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr William Senior

Substantial existing travel, leisure, education and health infrastructure. Low environmental impact versus other locations.

No

Representation ID: 94059

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ben Miloudi

The plan to build 6000 new dwellings is beyond comprehension. This is totally out of scale and would dwarf Barford. There appears to be a plan to merge Barford with Bishop's Tachbrook longer term. I can only imagine that the council would like to get their hands on the additional council taxes from these developments, regardless of the destruction this will cause to local habitat and wildlife. Once the green belt has gone, it's gone for good. These plans are a scandalous waste of tax payers money, the council are not acting in the interests of its local population.

Yes

Representation ID: 94195

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Helena Flisowski

Site near Leamington with its many amenities in and surrounding the area. Good road connections

Yes

Representation ID: 94197

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Helena Flisowski

This new settlement would be near to Leamington with the many amenities and job opportunities on offer

No

Representation ID: 94258

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Andrew Close

This site does not seem appropriate. I don't understand why this is adjudged as 'more suitable' and, by implication, 'more sustainable' as it will contribute to the sprawl of Leamington. The interim SA conclusions should be questioned by officers.

Yes

Representation ID: 94349

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Trevor Pickard

The proposed site is not within the Green Belt, is close to the M40 and J13 to which could be adapted to allow both north and south access and is in a sparsely populated area so development would not overload the infrastructure in the area. It is also in close proximity to SG09 and SG10.

Other

Representation ID: 94773

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Kineton Parish Council

We have insufficient knowledge of the location from which to make an informed comment

No

Representation ID: 95027

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kathryn Greenwood

Site is not suitable from a traffic and air pollution perspective. The local roads are already heavily congested during peak times and can not sustain the additional traffic.

No

Representation ID: 95075

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Ruth Dixon

There has already been too much development in this area and without the right infra-structure being put in

No

Representation ID: 95084

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Ruth Dixon

There has already been too much development in this area and not enough infrastructure put in

Yes

Representation ID: 95138

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Tom Matthews

There is considerable development in this area already, harm is already provided and there are excellent transport links in this area around the site

Yes

Representation ID: 95170

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Coughlan

This settlement links well with settlement X2, it is near enough to create a large size population identified within the SWLP as needed to attract sustainability, creating local jobs and amenities . X1 is also close to the large town of Leamington spa and commutable to Coventry .It is an area which is not needed to attract tourism and will not spoil the Tourism value of Stratford Upon Avon and the nearby areas of Henley in Arden , Wilmcote and Shottery with the inevitable increase in traffic volume which will put of tourists and affect income from tourisam

No

Representation ID: 95347

Received: 26/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Haydn Cooper

I attended a public consultation at Barford school and have some feedback. The proposed SG09 development includes a new motorway junction, which could lead to residential sprawl if X1 doesn’t develop simultaneously. SG09 and X1 would merge into a major urban area, contrary to the council’s aim to keep new settlements separate. Additionally, there are concerns about HGV access to the new junction due to single carriageway roads. Proposed developments on Wasperton Lane are inappropriate due to access issues and would worsen traffic issues. Development would harm food security by building on Best Most Versatile land.

Other

Representation ID: 95364

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Hatton Parish Council

Proximity to the M40 and Leamington Railway station make this, together with site X2 the best connected sites

Yes

Representation ID: 95367

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sue Pickard

Of the proposed locations for development in the Warwick area X1 has a more suitable access arrangement to the M40 (some modification to the junction will be required). Easy access to Leamington Spa Station for sites X1, SG09 and SG10. Not in the Green Belt. Low habitation so infrastructure can be developed in conjunction with build.

Yes

Representation ID: 95451

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Molloy

Better to increase current development in the South of Leamington/Warwick towards the motorways. Not Green Belt, close to transport links, combined infrastructure with recent developments in that area. South of river in and so residents do not need to cross bottle neck bridges to visit commercial, industrial and retail.

Yes

Representation ID: 95571

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sophia Bates

This location offers good transport links with easy access to the M40 & A46.
Suitable cycle routes & mainline station with frequent services to large towns.

Yes

Representation ID: 95650

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Clarke

Makes sense to locate in an area where existing development has already impacted upon the rural nature of land in the area.

Yes

Representation ID: 95894

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Emma Bliwert

This area isn't green belt and therefore more appropriate for building and also better served by the transport infrastructure. there would be more affordable housing in Leamington since there is a need for housing there where as other places may be less affordable.