Yes

Representation ID: 96104

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Janine Lee

This site is on non-green belt land and has good traffic infrastructure so it has advantages over proposed sites on green belt land.

No

Representation ID: 96152

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Aaron Thomas

should be discounted as they fail on sustainability, deliverability, and infrastructure grounds. The Regulation 19 SWLP must provide more explicit justifications and mitigation plans to be considered sound

Yes

Representation ID: 96249

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Nick Baker

Good transport links and potential for link road to M40 will take pressure off local roads compared to other proposed development sites

No

Representation ID: 96390

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Stephanie Kane

No

Yes

Representation ID: 96405

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 land south of Leamington. 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 south of Leamington should be developed before any Green Belt site.

Yes

Representation ID: 96437

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Bearley Wilmcote Action Group

All non Green Belt sites should be developed first!

No

Representation ID: 96611

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Amanda Griffin

Far too many houses will cause an unmanageable strain on infrastructure, most prominently , roads, healthcare, most notably Warwick Hospital and schools.

No

Representation ID: 96629

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Griffin

X1 brings 6,000 new houses with no assurances of additional schools , health facilities or amenities. The surrounding roads in Barford and entry/exit into Leamington and Warwick are already overly congested. Barford is now a busier "rabbit run" with traffic choosing Barford as alternative routes are busy. The track record of recent new developments has made life miserable (and that takes COVID into account when traffic was less). We need new towns not bolting on new sites into rural environments as fillers. If there wasnt a traffic problem in the area then why the need for a new M40 junction?

Other

Representation ID: 96786

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: 96818

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Le Page

Site outside Green Belt

Yes

Representation ID: 96897

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Jeffery

Not in Green Belt
Near to employment
Close to M40

No

Representation ID: 97242

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Hobbs

The proposed site allocation of X1 is not suitable for new community as it poses significant heritage harm as identified within the sustainability appraisal.

Additionally, the site score poorly on Climate Change, Biodiversity, Natural Resources and Waste.

Lastly, X1 is also inappropriate because–

• Increased traffic, parking provision and demand on existing infrastructure as well as subsequent increases in air pollution as a result of this;
• The visual impact of new buildings in a local context;
• Implications for community and key infrastructure; and
• The protection of trees, habitats and woodland.

No

Representation ID: 97274

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Hobbs

In Summary - The proposed site allocation of X1 is not suitable for new community as it poses significant heritage harm as identified within the sustainability appraisal.

Additionally, the site score poorly on Climate Change, Biodiversity, Natural Resources and Waste.

Lastly, X1 is also inappropriate because–

• Increased traffic, parking provision and demand on existing infrastructure as well as subsequent increases in air pollution as a result of this;
• The visual impact of new buildings in a local context;
• Implications for community and key infrastructure; and
• The protection of trees, habitats and woodland.

Yes

Representation ID: 97429

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Steven Evans

-Area has already started to expand - this could be a good further build if supported with infrastructure eg Schools/NHS.
-Transport links - could link up better to M40/A46 than other areas of Warwickshire
-Less impact on rural villages doing in this area than other Green Belt sites selected - eg Bearley-Wilmcote

No

Representation ID: 97440

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Lusty

Summary of severe adverse effects on the local area (see detailed comments):
• Loss of character of this area of South Warwickshire.
• Loss of significant amenity for the local community.
• Loss of the character of the villages and their communities.
• Increase in traffic exacerbating current traffic infrastructure issues.
• Lack of adequate public transport in the area.
• Increasing pressure on an already stretched local infrastructure.

Yes

Representation ID: 97507

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lisa Donovan

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

Yes

Representation ID: 97527

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Toni Sharp

X1 and X2 are the most suitable local sites for development. They're adjacent to the motorway and a new junction could be easily built. They're prime areas for strategic growth and the nearby Park and Ride could serve new homes and take people to Leamington station. The station could be developed as a perfect bus/rail interchange and the large car park is mostly empty. It's a far better site with least impact for South Warwickshire. It's close to many facilities and transportation links and there's space for a hospital. It makes sense to develop areas that have infrastructure in place.

No

Representation ID: 97605

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Anna Avino

Leamington has already exploded in the past five years. The roads are jammed, the services are overstretched and the vast housing developements and population explosion is changimg the character of the area and making it unpleasant. Infrastructure cannot cope with all the new 29,000 homes being concentrated in a few massive developments in the area particularly south Leamington and Whitnash which is gridlocked. These houses need to be fully dispersed across the whole of warwickshire with every town and village taking a handful of them. This would be a fairer, more sustainable appproach as the infratrusture will always play catch-up.

Yes

Representation ID: 97685

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Mike Massey

Relative to other proposed sites, I feel use of X1 would have less impact on any established community. The nearby M40 junction could be converted into a normal one with access in all directions. Rail access could be achieved by a bus service to Leamington, perhaps with a park and ride facility to service the wider area. Importantly this area is not within the green belt.

Yes

Representation ID: 97819

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Jeffery

N/A

No

Representation ID: 97863

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Lorna Hobart

Infrastructure -already insufficient. Barford has quality land - UK/world facing food insecurity & resource challenges, which will worsen this decade. These areas get flooded - building developments will worsen this. The character of the area will be lost. The only countryside walk around the village will be ruined. It is highly valued by residents -the fields you will build on have red- and amber-listed species, including yellowhammers, hares, kestrels, wrens, redwings, song thrushes, etc). Habitat fragmentation already too bad - these species will disappear from the area forever. Pollution, noise, emissions. Overall: a vision of death all round. No future.

Yes

Representation ID: 97987

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Benjamin Sharp

Please see my comments below for site X2 as they apply equally here.

Yes

Representation ID: 98390

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Susan Hague

Of the areas submitted this looks to be one of the most suitable should we have to have more houses built as it has access to better road infrastructure than other sites.

Yes

Representation ID: 98391

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Susan Hague

The option extends the present settlements already built and has good access to the land that is accessible to the road network.

No

Representation ID: 98762

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Catherine Horsfall

This site is unsuitable due to:
1) lack of capacity in existing sewage systems. Currently Severn Trent release directly into the river routinely.
2) Warick hospital lacks capacity for this additional population
3) The increased pressure it will put on the road network through Barford village as an access route to employment in Stratford, to the M40 via longbridge island, and to the A46 route to coventry.
4) lack of access to train station other than via congested routes in south leamington
5) overcrowded parking facilities at the Shires shopping center
6) elimination of rural setting of Barford

No

Representation ID: 98853

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Gill Worthington

1. Current infrastructure doctors/dentists/ schools are close to capacity already without adding new places.
2. Valuable good quality agricultural land will be destroyed when local food security needs to be prioritised as a matter of national policy.
3. Proposed development sites include flood plain for current housing in Wellesbourne and, if developed, will put the existing housing at risk. We have seen the fields around us flood over many years. Photo evidence can be provided if requested.
4. Wellesbourne has contributed to housing targets and current allocated sites provide sufficient new housing for 4.5 years of housing targets.

Yes

Representation ID: 98968

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Wyatt

This land has little recreational attraction and because it is bounded by Warwick/Leamington on one side and the M40 on the other, it is of little importance to wildlife. It is a logical extension to the existing development areas and its location with M40 is ideal for a new motorway junction. Therefore transport links are excellent. Easy access to Warwick / Leamington. Ideal opportunity for building a large hospital complex and out of town retail park.

No

Representation ID: 99015

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sally Ashley

Objection based on placing additional pressures on existing infrastructure which already cannot cope, increased traffic, noise and pollution, destruction and loss of ecology in an area which has already lost much due to major house building at The Asps, destruction of rural views and picturesque approach into Warwick town

No

Representation ID: 99036

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Tom Hainey

Location means village of Barford will be swamped with traffic, which is currently too heavy (used as rat run)
Insufficient infrastructure e.g. GP, Schools.
Public services are currently inadequate and this soul be excessive, especially water and sewerage.
Remove large farmland areas.

No

Representation ID: 99108

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Charlotte Morgan

Barford has expanded significantly in recent years, with a number of new build developments. The village school is now at capacity and does not have room to expand further. The by-pass (A429) is very busy at peak times and the Barford junction is an accident blackspot. The location of the proposed new settlement would lead to the destruction of prime agricultural land and would mean the region is contributing less to production of fresh food. The rural character of the village would be lost. Negative impact on air quality and the health of residents. More car journeys needed.