Yes

Representation ID: 93365

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Ian Michael Hayes

Plenty of space in non greenbelt land to develop along a robust road transport network.

Yes

Representation ID: 93376

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Daryl Kerin

To be considered. As it is not within the Green Belt

Yes

Representation ID: 93402

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ewa Kerin

As it is not Green Belt. Although Urban Spawl needs to cease.

Yes

Representation ID: 93435

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Denise Holroyde

This appears to be a suitable area for growth for homes and businesses

No

Representation ID: 93544

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jon Redhead

There are already many large developments around South Leamington and Whitnash, so consideration is needed as far as to whether the existing infrastructure would be overstretched/compromised by further housing development.

Yes

Representation ID: 93753

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Christopher Bennett

I feel this (along with SG09/SG10/SG11 and X1) 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.

Yes

Representation ID: 93778

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Minhaz Ali-Bache

This location is suitable because it is
close to or overlap with Strategic growth locations
not green belt
not close to local nature reserve
not close to ancient woodland
not close to SSSI
close to urban business parks and industrial estates (spatial growth strategy)
and has good public transport links

No

Representation ID: 93998

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Sarah THOMAS

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

Yes

Representation ID: 94020

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr William Senior

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

Yes

Representation ID: 94196

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Helena Flisowski

Settlement would be near to a busy town with many amenities and good transport links

Other

Representation ID: 94233

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Andrew Close

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: 94234

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Val Baker

Of all the areas being considered for development this looks to be the best placed. Better infrastructure/ road system already in place. Less impact on the region's green belt.

Yes

Representation ID: 94356

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Trevor Pickard

The proposed site is not within the Green Belt, is in a sparsely populated area so development would not overload the local infrastructure and is also in close proximity to SG11.

Other

Representation ID: 94774

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: 95085

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: 95137

Received: 03/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Tom Matthews

Due to the proximety to the HS2 developments, considerable harm has already been undertaken around this site. As such this site would represent an excellent choice for development

Other

Representation ID: 95372

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Hatton Parish Council

Proximity to the M40 and Leamington Rail station make this, together with Site X1 the best connected.

Yes

Representation ID: 95379

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sue Pickard

The proposed site is not within the Green Belt. It is in a sparsely populated area so development would not overload the local infrastructure, is in close proximity to SG11 which is a Strategic Growth Location.

Yes

Representation ID: 95392

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Janet Ashcroft

Near Motorway Plans for new Motorway junction Town infrastructure in place Close to main line station Good for bus/rail interchange Site should have minimal impact on South Warwickshire Open areas where new hospital could be built ?

Yes

Representation ID: 95454

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: 95577

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sophia Bates

Due to the good road connections in this location, access to major train stations and cycle routes.

Yes

Representation ID: 95657

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.

No

Representation ID: 95864

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Whitnash Residents Association

Agent: Whitnash Residents Association

Harbury Lane unsuitable

Urban sprawl from Whitnash

Yes

Representation ID: 95896

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.

Yes

Representation ID: 96105

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: 96153

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: 96178

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Yvonne Joyce

this an area not in green belt. it is well connected to meet 20min commute to work .close to leamington/warwick area for work.

Yes

Representation ID: 96250

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Nick Baker

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

Yes

Representation ID: 96267

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Coughlan

X2 has good links to Leamington spa and all the amenities this town provides.
The combined settlements F2 and X2 plus X1 as well as strategic growth areas identified with in the SWLP local to these potential settlements would create an excellent opportunity for a vibrant community which would attract the infrastructure needed for sustainability due to the combined size and the surrounding existing amenities and infrastructure.

No

Representation ID: 96392

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Stephanie Kane

The fosseway is historic