Yes

ID sylw: 98453

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Philip Sykes

The location of the potential new settlements appears logical.

No

ID sylw: 98456

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Burton Dassett Parish Council

1) All brownfield sites are included in achieving the goal of strategic growth aspirations and housing needs and the use of brownfield sites is prioritised over greenfield, given their likely close proximity to existing road and rail infrastructure and services including health care, education, retail and leisure.

2) The additional development is designed to encourage growth prospects for that area, rather than simply providing a dormitory for workers to commute from, to existing centres. Where existing centres need more people, build more dwellings within the curtilage of that centre, so public transport can be easily extended rather than created from scratch.

3) The proposals do not fundamentally change the character of the surrounding area unless the growth in economic and social benefits from that change can be shown to justify the change. Do not "ruin" the character of a small community/environment by simply adding 100 dwellings and nothing more.

4) All developments are in proportion to the likely growth prospects for the area.

5) Where consideration is being given to the housing needs of the area.

The PC would not support the SWLP where the proposed sites would conflict with the following points:

1) The use of prime agricultural land - SG13/14 G1,F1/2/3 seem to conflict with this.

2) Where flooding is already an issue and will be exacerbated - SG14 G1,F3 seem to conflict with this.

3) Lack/overload of local infrastructure at sites - primary/secondary schools, doctors surgeries, hospitals, grocery and retail outlets, rail links (Network Rail does not intend opening a new station at Deppers Bridge, nearest rail link would be at Banbury or Leamington Spa and the railway next to G1 is for MOD, Kineton use only) as well as utilities - water, sewage, mains gas, electrical supply. The SWLP is looking at reducing the reliance on cars, but the current suggestions would only increase their usage in areas where there is lack of public transport - SG13/14 G1,F2/3 seem to conflict with this.

4) Unsuitable road network, access is only by B roads or country or single track roads. SG13/14,G1 are next to or near the M40 and increase in traffic would put a considerable strain onto an already congested Junct.12 at peak hours, it being the nearest junction for JLR, AM and the Upper Lighthorne development - G1,F2 seem to conflict with this.

5) All sites, would see an increase in light pollution, detrimental to the whole of these areas.

6) Would seriously impact the views from Burton Dassett Country Park, a Special Landscape Area looked after by Warwickshire County Council and/or Chesterton Windmill. Both sites, from their raised positions have far reaching views over open countryside and these sites would impact the character of the area - SG10/11/13/14 G1,F1/3 seem to conflict with this.

7) Cultural and historic assets. These developments run alongside the Fosse Way where there are potential Roman sites. At G1 the Old Salt road (a single track lane) runs alongside this proposal where both medieval and Roman sites have already been found during the recent construction stage of a solar farm - SG10/11,F1 seem to conflict with this.

8) Avoid the swamping of existing villages, irreversibly changing their character to the detriment of existing residents, particularly Gaydon, already blighted by multiple threats of inappropriate development - SG13/14 seem to conflict with this, would swamp the village making it an undesirable place to live.

No

ID sylw: 98523

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Robert Shuttleworth

I understand from talking to a council officer at a public consultation that all these ares bar one have come from private inputs presumably based on developers or land owners seeking profit? Why wouldn't WDC designate land at agricultural value near Harbury/Bishops Itchington(with new station included) and focus housing and employment on a pre-existing high quality rail corridor with links to Southam and Garden, thus spreading future wealth and taking pressure off a traffic choked Warwick. Development focused on Hatton/Parkway stations also viable but fundamental need to shift travel from car to train would be required.

No

ID sylw: 98535

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Katie Walker

Building thousands of houses on one site is a fundamental change to an area and surroundings. Obviously there are cost savings and economies-of-scale, however why not build smaller developments over several sites to spread the load around South Warwickshire, preserving larger areas of green belt and not overwhelming a particular area?
We live in Wilmcote and are opposed to the development around there to protect the green belt. It is also on the Shakespeare tourist bus route. It seems a shame to destroy the countryside around an area attracting international tourists, and may negatively impact Stratford’s appeal and local economy.

Yes

ID sylw: 98673

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: X2 New Settlement Consortium

Asiant : Mr Jack Barnes

For the reasons outlined in the Consortiums response to the X2 – New Settlement question, the inclusion of New Settlements as part of a growth strategy for South Warwickshire is considered feasible, logical and sound.

No

ID sylw: 98677

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Catesby Estates

Asiant : Mr Will Whitelock

The need for significant new infrastructure and facilities to support the Potential New Settlements will mean that these growth locations are unlikely to be delivered until towards the end of the Plan Period to 2050. Clearly, there is a requirement for smaller allocations to meet the identified housing needs in the shorter term, in accordance with Paragraph 72 of the Framework.

Yes

ID sylw: 98796

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Old Milverton and Blackdown Parish Council

The concept of new settlements intrinsically allows for better and more sustainable design. We would support any proposed site which does not over-urbanise the wider West Midlands area and which is not in the West Midlands Green Belt. New settlements should at all costs be avoided in narrow and restrictive parts of the Green Belt. The Green Belt is there precisely to prevent conurbanisation.

No

ID sylw: 98826

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Emily Sumerling

high visual impact
detrimental effect on villages
land is currently actively farmed
villages have very limited public transport
local roads are narrow and very busy
local primary already full
no local secondary within walking distance
no mains gas, limited mains water for sewage
unreliable electricity supply, many power cuts regularly
increased demand on strained dental and NHS services

No

ID sylw: 98909

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Friends of Radfords Green Environment (FORGE)

Several proposed settlements in the Local Plan are within existing Green Belt, which if built on would have a negative impact on designated sites and wildlife including protected and declining species at these locations, which act as transitional buffers for nature and would reduce access to nature for people living in urban areas.

Other

ID sylw: 98923

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Friends of Radfords Green Environment (FORGE)

You list Radford Semele as a possible settlement location in Options 1,2&4 and on the option 5 map. It appears Radford has been identified for another 50 to 100 dwellings. This would be unacceptable as the village has already experienced 25% growth with approx. 300 houses of the last 10 years. Additionally the remaining land around the village is high quality agricultural land, has a high biodiversity value, or form part of a historic landscape that would be adversely affected by new development

Yes

ID sylw: 98938

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Liberal Democrat Group (Stratford District councillors)

I agree with the approach but in moving new settlements forward the proper infrastructure such as roads and other transport infrastructure, schools, doctors and dentist, community halls and shops should be created at the same time in order to ensure proper community growth.

No

ID sylw: 98941

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: (1) AG Family Trust 2024 & (2) N. Holdsworth

Asiant : The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

It is unclear how some new settlement locations have been chosen and how disconnected they are from the Stages 1 and 2 Call for Sites exercises. We would also question inviting further submissions where none were previously submitted.

Expansion at Kingswood utilising sites already identified through the Call for Sites would be preferrable to a new settlement and sustainable as Kingswood is a Priority 2 location. It is assumed this arises from its location on the railway network. The land to the east of Station Lane is a very short distance to Lapworth Railway Station.

Other

ID sylw: 99029

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Kevan Russell

New settlements should be utilised as much as possible as the best chance of guaranteeing that adequate infrastructure is in place to cope with the number of new dwellings.
This strategy would also make 'strategic growth' more manageable.

No

ID sylw: 99035

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Stephen Wyatt

No. The whole process is not done fairly or transparently. Somehow we are at stage 3. Residents have not had anything through the post on this process. Where was stage 2?? Where was stage 1?? Why are we not communicated with on these? The documents supplied, over 600 pages are very poor quality, full of errors, are subjective in nature and not quantitative. They are clearly not peer reviewed. There is no version control. No record of any sign off or identity of author. Looks like some of them are put together with AI as they are muddled and repetitive.

Other

ID sylw: 99082

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Nurton Developments (Loes Farm) Ltd

Asiant : Chave Planning

In summary, NDL would support the identification of a small number of new settlements, provided that the SWLP includes a robust supply of sites of fewer than 500 dwellings, in order to ensure a healthy housing land supply throughout the plan period.

Other

ID sylw: 99100

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Nurton Developments (Lapworth) Ltd

Asiant : Chave Planning

In summary, NDL would support the identification of a small number of new settlements, provided that the SWLP includes a robust supply of sites of fewer than 500 dwellings, in order to ensure a healthy housing land supply throughout the plan period.

No

ID sylw: 99121

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Charlotte Morgan

Loss of agricultural land. Creation of settlements that are not close to businesses, shops, schools, medical facilities etc. People will make more car journeys thereby increasing pollution and worsening air quality. Negative impact on the character and beauty of the area.

No

ID sylw: 99273

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Summers Holdings Ltd

Asiant : The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

No, we fail to understand why some of the specific new settlement locations have been chosen and how disconnected they are from the Call for Sites exercises. We would also question the integrity of inviting further Call for Sites submissions where none were previously submitted. Were prospective new settlements to be identified then they should have drawn on the Call for Sites results, as they have been, as in the case of proposed new settlement A1, which is supported by our client.

No

ID sylw: 99437

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Diane Wilson

Major growth has already taken place in the form of HS2 and recent and new developments being built are already impacting historical heritage, loss of countryside, village boundaries and wildlife habitat.

No

ID sylw: 99528

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Rebecca Loades

Please reconsider developing in South Wellesbourne. Please protect this conservation area from housing and solar farms. We already have a solar farm which is now an eyesore in the middle of the countryside. This area does not need urbanising!

No

ID sylw: 99534

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Welford on Avon Parish Council

New town proposal E1 should be removed.

Its completely unsustainable - major housing development in the middle of nowhere !

all empleyment is north of stratford and the river avon and this proposal is south of the river.

The only way this could be considered is if new river crossings were established to the east and west of stratford upon avon. £100-200m please.

Other

ID sylw: 99541

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Gillian Padgham

Whilst I agree with the general approach, please see my comments on individual HELAA locations near to Southam.

No

ID sylw: 99572

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Peter Tibbles

These all appear to be situated in completely rural areas, with the exception of X1, X2, F1 and B1. They appear to be wholly inappropriate, with no existing provision for higher level services such as rail, healthcare, education, transportation and emergency services. Many of the sites are miles away from employment hubs and would increase local travel, emissions and congestion

Yes

ID sylw: 99638

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Martin Grubb

As mentioned when supporting the development of 2 of the New Settlements I agree with the concept that they can be planned in greater detail rather then blistering onto such location as Stratford. Greater thought can take place.

No

ID sylw: 99659

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Gail Watts

Big increase in traffic on A3400 and narrow winding country lane through Bearley and Snitterfield villages which is used as a short cut to the A46.
Large impact on the wild life around the fields and in the SSSI woodland.
Fields in front of Bearley Farm slope downhill towards woods and houses sometimes causing flooding during heavy rainfall. And the only entrance and exit to these fields is via the very narrow Church Lane in the Conservation Area which is not suitable for an increase in traffic.
Lack of infrastructure in Bearley neighbour hood to support an increase in population.

Yes

ID sylw: 99708

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Stratford upon Avon District Council

NA

No

ID sylw: 99733

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Peter Delve

100% of the proposed new BW settlement is on Greenbelt land. Under the National planning policy framework (NPPF) 2024 (see paragraph 144) states development on green belt is only permitted where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced are justified. On the basis that 46,500 homes are available via 7 of the other proposed new settlement sites (E1, F1, F2, F3, G1, X1 and X2) aren’t on green belt land they how can exceptional circumstances apply? There is no compelling evidence to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances test is met. On this basis alone the BW site should not be taken forward.

Yes

ID sylw: 99773

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Robin Hanick

Makes more sense to have a larger settlement closer to suitable infrastructure routes and away from existing local villages with inadequate infrastructure

Yes

ID sylw: 99884

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Jane Hanick

I think it is better to have new settlements away from existing villages and towns where there is inadequate infrastructure

No

ID sylw: 99930

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Miss Ann Colley

Towns of Warwick, Lemaington, Startford and even Banbury (Oxfordshire) are already congested due to the volume of vehicles are on the roads with no room to expand these routes to accomodate 'green' transport.