Yes

Representation ID: 100436

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Aimee Carter

Appropriate and matches with overall strategy is SG09, SG10 and SG11 are used fore development

Yes

Representation ID: 100610

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Residents Concerned for Kenilworth South

Support the development of a new settlement on non-green belt land, with the space to provide a large number of houses plus additional amenities to support new residents. Rather than extending existing settlements with already overstretched, or at capacity, amenities such as schools, doctors, dentists, etc
Road infrastructure will be designed to manage the increased volume of traffic, rather than putting additional vehicles on roads in existing settlements which haven't been designed to manage the new volume.

Yes

Representation ID: 101038

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Melissa Gillone

This site is significantly better than the BW site, as it lacks heritage constraints and does not contribute to the same level of urban sprawl.

Yes

Representation ID: 101695

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lisa Bowen

The site has access to great infrastructure and is close to places of employment.

Yes

Representation ID: 101785

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Perry

Again Motorway/dual carriageway system in place.
Schools in place.
Infrastructure in place.

No

Representation ID: 101786

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Miss Janet Neale

This area is already over populated. significant roadworks have already take place to supposedly meet the need of the growth from the existing Warwick District Local Plan and yet the system is still broken.

Yes

Representation ID: 101801

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Debbie Perry

I support a new settlement at Leamingto Spa/Whitnash because transport infrastructure is in plac. School schools in the area and accessible employment opportunities across Midlands via road and rail network. Leamington has a number of national "headquarters" attracting workers and consumers boosting the economy and local businesses.

No

Representation ID: 101827

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Site X2, covering 324 hectares, could accommodate 6,480 homes but faces major challenges. Ranked 4th in the SA, it lacks infrastructure, sustainable transport and proximity to essential services. It impacts priority habitats, heritage assets and natural resources, sitting on mineral safeguarding areas and flood-prone land. The HELAA flags multiple ownerships with no clear intent to sell, making it undevelopable under NPPF guidelines. X2 is poorly located, reliant on car travel and near over-capacity roads. Without infrastructure solutions, the SWLP risks failing soundness tests at Regulation 19. Increased traffic could cause severe congestion at key junctions, creating gridlock.

No

Representation ID: 102250

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jenny Bevan

Site X2 is unsuitable for development and contradicts the SWLP’s evidence-led strategy. It lies in Growth Strategy Priority Area 3, lacks infrastructure, public transport and accessibility to employment, making it unsustainable. The HELAA flags multiple ownership issues, with only 47% of the land available, making delivery unrealistic.

X2 fails national policy tests, being in an unsustainable location with flood risks, priority habitats and significant heritage impacts, including a Scheduled Monument. It is the worst-performing site for natural resources, overlapping three Mineral Safeguarding Areas. X2 is unjustified, ineffective and inconsistent with sustainable development principles.

No

Representation ID: 102265

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Niall Shimmin

Will overload existing infrastructure.
Road network not suitable.
No amenities.
Poor public transport links.

No

Representation ID: 102693

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Judy Steele

Infracstructure needs for this settlement would make it impractical and would have severe impact on existing housing

No

Representation ID: 102880

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Diana Taulbut

Whoever put X2 in the plan is obviously completely unaware that Chesterton Windmill is one of the area's favourite free visitor attractions, whose setting in the countryside is much photographed and appreciated. It is not going to look good in the middle of a housing estate. Furthermore, there is a scheduled ancient monument in X2 and the surrounding area is protected regarding Roman remains (Chesterton fort), and its landscape should also be protected. Is the "desktop planning" so poor that no-one can work that one out?!

Yes

Representation ID: 102929

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jem Brown

I agree, of all the options, this one and option BW are more suitable. X2 has notably fewer habitats than say F2, F3 and G3 although small amounts of distinctive grassland. It is 4km from Leamington Spa station. Although there is no green belt around Leamington there is a high risk that this option would tend to considerably increase the sprawl of Leamington Spa and is likely become joined to Leamington over time since there is only a 1km buffer to Leamington outskirts.

No

Representation ID: 102990

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Chesterton and Kingston Parish Meeting

Harbury Lane and the Fosseway are single carriageway roads running along the northern and eastern boundaries of this site. Harbury Lane is prone to flooding with water run off from the land immediately to the south of Harbury Lane. This flood risk would be worsened with new settlement development.

There are significant archaeological remains in the area on the land to the south of Harbury Lane and either side of the Fosse Way. It is a sensitive area.

There is currently Solar Farm construction on 234 acres on part of X2 (Chesterton Fields Farm) south east quadrant of X2.

Other

Representation ID: 103083

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Severn Trent Water

This development will likely require treatment at Warwick - Longbridge (STW) Treatment Works, this Wastewater Treatment works has medium capacity and high environmental constraints. Due to the size of the development, it is recommended that network upgrades will be required, alongside hydraulic modelling and engagement with STW. Overall this development site is considered a medium/high risk location, there is some capacity however in order to accommodate growth, infrastructure upgrades will be required and we would need to work closely to understand build timelines, in order to plan accordingly.

Yes

Representation ID: 103617

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Philip Wall

Ideal

Yes

Representation ID: 103748

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Deborah Carter

By prioritising sustainable, non-Green Belt sites, housing can be delivered responsibly—without destroying the countryside, harming biodiversity, or overwhelming local services.

Yes

Representation ID: 103788

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Micheal Dylan

This site has good transport links to surrounding areas and good job opportunities locally in Leamington, it is also commutable to Stratford upon Avon, Warwick and Coventry. This site could be good along side site X2 in attracting additional amenaties

Yes

Representation ID: 103801

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Carol Jones

A new settlement on non-green belt land should be the first consideration for development.
New Settlements are preferable to spatial growth areas, as the appropriate infrastructure and amenities will be provided, rather than adding additional volume to already over stretched existing facilities in spatial growth areas.
Development without the removal of greenbelt should be the priority.

No

Representation ID: 104026

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kay Haycock

X1, X2: Considered undevelopable due to multiple ownership issues and lack of infrastructure. Only 14% of X1 and 47% of X2 have been put forward for development, making them both unviable.

X1, X2: Fail key NPPF tests, particularly in transport accessibility, infrastructure provision, and realistic deliverability.
Conclusion:
X1 and X2 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.

No

Representation ID: 104027

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kay Haycock

X1, X2: Considered undevelopable due to multiple ownership issues and lack of infrastructure. Only 14% of X1 and 47% of X2 have been put forward for development, making them both unviable.

X1, X2: Fail key NPPF tests, particularly in transport accessibility, infrastructure provision, and realistic deliverability.
Conclusion:
X1 and X2 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.

No

Representation ID: 104100

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Louis haycock

X1, X2: Considered undevelopable due to multiple ownership issues and lack of infrastructure. Only 14% of X1 and 47% of X2 have been put forward for development, making them both unviable.

X1, X2: Fail key NPPF tests, particularly in transport accessibility, infrastructure provision, and realistic deliverability.
Conclusion:
X1 and X2 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.

No

Representation ID: 104121

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Kenneth Chitty

this area is already over developed and present numerous transport difficulties coupled with lack of facilities.

Yes

Representation ID: 104141

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Nicola Sawle

non green belt fits the M40 corridor and would support housing to the nearby industry

Yes

Representation ID: 104480

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Phill Levy

Close proximity to the M40, and good links to the main station at Leamington.

Other

Representation ID: 104502

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural England - Warwickshire

X2 Land south of Whitnash west of Fosse Way: This is a a very large area of farmland, 324ha. A new settlement is not supported; see instead response on SG11 Land SE of Whitnash. The land between Harbury Lane and the railway is the 1930s Leamington Airfield and includes a scrapyard and a container storage base. It lies in the area of Whitnash Town Council. An urban extension here is possible, though not extending as far south-eastwards as the Fosse Way. Much more work is needed to examine this; one factor would be the future of the golf course.

No

Representation ID: 104592

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Ailsa Chambers

The lack of transport accessibility and infrastructure makes this option unviable. Development on this site would present significant environmental and heritage issues which cannot be mitigated. Too much of our local natural habitats have already been lost and it would be environmentally irresponsible to lose more. Bishops Tachbrook’s village characteristics will be lost forever if the sprawl of development between the village and Leamington does not stop.

Yes

Representation ID: 104603

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Amy Bambridge

It makes sense to develop around Leamington, which affords easier transport access to shops, recreation and hospitals. Leamington town centre is also in desperate need of economic rejuvenation.

Yes

Representation ID: 104951

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Susan Hood

Close to transport road links (M40), plus rail (West Coast mainline and Chiltern). Adjacent to existing urban areas. Local wildlife sites not impacted.

Yes

Representation ID: 105046

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr William Langstone

It seems to me that this would be a good location to create a new settlement, being close to other recent development in Whitnash, and being served by the Fosse Way which has had major work done in that section recently, providing good traffic management links.

Any green belt land developed can feel like a loss, and I spent much time in my childhood around here. While there would be disruptions they don't seem unacceptable.