Other

ID sylw: 105790

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Dianne Tillotson

As a resident of Shrewley, I am concerned about the proposed development at Hatton Hill Site Ref ID 692, which I believe will negatively impact my family and me. I object to the idea of removing trees and fields to build more houses, especially when we are encouraged to adopt green practices. There is no need for additional housing in our area, and I question the demand for new homes given that previous developments in Hatton Park remain unsold. I urge that we preserve our natural spaces rather than contribute to further destruction.

Other

ID sylw: 105793

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Gillian Nussey

I have several objections to the proposed large housing developments. Firstly, Bidford lacks a secondary school, as the previous one was demolished for housing. There is no bus service to the Graftons or a train station in Bidford. Road communications are risky due to an ancient bridge, and traffic will increase through the Graftons, endangering pedestrians. Lastly, the housing planned in the Refid 16 plan would have a negative visual impact and is on land currently being worked.

Other

ID sylw: 105803

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Matthew Cartlidge

Site 469
The development on this site raises some serious concerns regarding flood risk, increased traffic congestion, irreversible damage to local wildlife. There is strong community opposition due to the serious and irreversible issues cited above.
The environmental risks, infrastructure challenges, and loss of local wildlife far outweigh any potential benefits. Allowing this development to proceed would demonstrate a disregard for the well-being and safety of existing residents, as well as the protection of the natural environment.
The Council should prioritise other sustainable locations.

Other

ID sylw: 105804

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Matthew Cartlidge

Site-633
The development on this site raises some serious concerns regarding flood risk, increased traffic congestion, irreversible damage to local wildlife. There is strong community opposition due to the serious and irreversible issues cited above.
The environmental risks, infrastructure challenges, and loss of local wildlife far outweigh any potential benefits. Allowing this development to proceed would demonstrate a disregard for the well-being and safety of existing residents, as well as the protection of the natural environment.
The Council should prioritise other sustainable locations.

Other

ID sylw: 105814

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Diane Weir

Site 22-Land rear of Kingswood Cottages
The land is a greenbelt and agricultural land and large parts of the site are within floodplain and there has been flooding on the site.
The land is in Canal Conservation Area and any development will be detrimental to the local village scene.
The brow bridge of a canal is not ideal for traffic.
The existing infrastructure will not be able to cope with further development. Some land seems to have been removed and planning application submitted on the site.

Other

ID sylw: 105825

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ruth Taylor

(REFID 8) The Green, Snitterfield.

I refer to the above site, which remains in my ownership, and am pleased to note that it is in the Preferred Options and sincerely hope that you will indeed consider it further.
Snitterfield is an inspiring village with church, school, pub, an excellent shop and an active community.

It is ideally located with easy access onto the A46 for Stratford-upon-Avon and the M40.

With highly regarded schools in Stratford-upon-Avon and Warwick it is a much sought after location that lends itself to sensitive development.

This proposed site is central to the village without fundamentally expanding it.

I trust that you will give the utmost consideration to the views expressed above.

Other

ID sylw: 105830

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Andrew Craig

LETTER OF OBJECTION - Development of land “Infill Site 169 land east of Station Lane, Lapworth”.

We have received your letter telling us to respond to the local plan before March 9th.

This land was considered for development 10 or 15 years ago, so you will be already aware of its total unsuitability for this purpose.

Development here on this site is inappropriate due to its total lack of amenities. One hairdresser, an Off Licence/ Post Office,a small convenience store and a tile shop. That’s it! All journeys to a supermarket would need to be done by car, so I suggest developments should be in much larger locations such as Warwick or Leamington Spa, where many more journeys can be made on a bus, bicycle or on foot. This is the goal for which we are supposed to be striving. Lapworth is far too remote to have any meaningful eco-credentials.

Another concern is that any development on other much larger sites will not fulfil the perceived lack of housing. Young people have to save for a 25% deposit, which even on a £400,000 house is a substantial £20,000. Without the bank of Mum and Dad, this is usually unobtainable. So the houses need to be small, maybe shared-ownership, and with access to 100% mortgages, so that the first step onto the housing ladder is achievable.

In conclusion, I strongly object to this site ‘169’ adjacent to Station Lane being developed. I could, of course, tell you of the families of Muntjacs that live in this field, that we see most mornings. Or the complete unsuitability of the lane off which the cars will come and go. We’re called Station Lane because it’s just that, a little lane; not a road.

And it’s Green Belt which must be respected, surely, despite what people in Westminster may find it convenient to tell us.

Thank you for taking my concerns and objections into account.

Other

ID sylw: 105832

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Kathlyn Craig

I have the following comments on a specific site proposal and Housing Land
Availability Assessment (HELAA) results:
Ref 169 - Land east of Station Lane

My personal interest in this specific development site proposal is
I live in Station Lane and overlook this site.
The grounds for objection are as follows:
The objections to the development of a settlement at site C1 apply similarly to site reference
169, as any large number of new houses built in the village has the same impact on the whole
area. But site 169 has extra problems. The access to the site is from a narrow country lane,
wherever you choose to place it. The extra number of cars trying to enter or leave the site,
particularly at rush hour and school time, would cause serious congestion. That is without
considering the delivery vehicles, oil delivery tankers, tradesmen's lorries, bin collecting vehicles
etc, all using the same access point. The land running alongside the canal is a flood plain, and
the land beside that floods when it rains. In addition, this site is the last remaining piece of the
medieval Kingswood Common, which itself was part of the ancient historic Forest of Arden... the
Kings Wood. The boundary of the site bordering Station Lane is lined with century old oak trees,
protected by Tree Preservation Orders. The surrounding area includes a Canal Conservation
area, two National Trust medieval properties, a Conservation Area around the 1200-year old
church, other listed buildings, and an ancient woodland. This site is also Green Belt land. It is
home to a diverse number of species, including Muntjac deer, Fallow deer, Foxes, Buzzards,
Tawny owls, Barn owls, the occasional Hare, Pheasants, Woodpeckers, and numerous
squirrels and small birds. Otters are now living on the canal. With so many of our native species
endangered, the loss of yet another habitat is to be avoided, surely.

In conclusion, I believe these objections are important because:
Lapworth is unable to sustain such a large number of new residents, possibly 6 or 7 times more
that the existing population of the village. Such a level of investment would be needed to
improve road, transport, education, retail, and utilities, as to make the scheme unviable. The
character of the village would be irrevocably changed, and the Green Belt compromised, to the
detriment of all.

Other

ID sylw: 105842

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: David Beesley

I am writing to formally object to the inclusion of the following Strategic Growth Area/
proposed New Settlement location within the South Warwickshire Local plan.
Other outside of Lapworth's surrounding area see reference below.
My personal interest in this Strategic Growth/ New Settlement site is:
I am a resident of Lapworth and neighbour of HELAA B assessment site #615
The grounds for objection to this Strategic Growth Area/ proposed New Settlement
location within the South Warwickshire Local plan is as follows:
Visual Sensitivity: My property and my neighbours' properties directly overlook the proposed
site, and this development would completely alter the character of our surroundings. I purchased
my home in 2023 specifically for its rural setting, with open fields providing peace, privacy, and
an unspoiled landscape. Replacing these fields with multiple dwellings is an unacceptable overdevelopment that is entirely out of scale with the area.
Green Belt Contribution: The site is located in an area that makes a strong contribution to the
Green Belt purposes. Developing this site would undermine the integrity of the Green Belt, which
is crucial for preventing urban sprawl and maintaining the character of our rural areas.
Transport: The site lacks adequate connectivity to public transport networks. This would likely
increase reliance on private vehicles, contributing to traffic congestion and environmental
pollution. Chessetts Wood Road is already a dangerous road with a 60 mph speed limit. Most
days, I witness near-miss accidents involving pedestrians and horse riders. The road's narrow
and winding nature makes it unsuitable for increased traffic, and additional housing would only
exacerbate these risks. Just last year, a car crashed through my hedge due to excessive speed,
highlighting the real dangers that already exist. Increasing the number of vehicles using this road
would put even more lives at risk.
Community Impact: The proposed development does not align with the needs and character of
the existing community. It risks altering the rural landscape and could lead to a loss of
community identity. In addition, our area is already lacking educational and healthcare
infrastructure.
In light of these concerns, I urge the planning committee to reconsider the inclusion of site #615
in the development plan. Protecting our Green Belt and ensuring sustainable, community focused development should be a priority.

Other

ID sylw: 105845

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr John K Brocklehurst

REF ID 569: Weston Under Wetherley

I would like to take up the invitation to have my comments noted on the continued Consultation on the SWLP. I engaged on the first consultation and was pleased to see that the large scale proposed mixed development of Bridge Farm and Bridge Barn Farm is not in the strategic site options but not so pleased to see it remains in consideration for the local plan. I am not in agreement with that situation but can understand that being tenant farms owned by the Council, it makes it an easy option each time a new round of local planning comes up.
The point I would make is that if it was not considered suitable to take to the strategic site options now, why is it still under consideration.

The main thrust of my points against going forward are still the same.

Green Belt development should not be seen as an easy option to spread urban development. There are numerous options for development in the Green Belt as matters stand now. I strongly believe no new options for strategic growth should be added to this.
Weston Under Wetherley lies outside of the Leamington Spa/Lillington/Cubbington urban area. We have Green Belt countryside between us, and further, we now have the HS2 railway line passing through this narrow gap. The only good thing one can say about that for Warwickshire, is that it now forms in Planning terms a hard feature of the landscape between Weston and Leamington urban area. It is paramount in my view that green belt development should not be extended over that HS2 barrier, or a result would inevitably be the loss of Green Belt separation of Coventry and Leamington Spa.

On reading through the Housing and Economic Land Availability assessment for site 569 I have further comments to make:

1.The assessment does not reflect the actual suitability of the site…it seriously underestimates the sites flooding risk. As a resident of this area I have walked over the rural public rights of way for many years and can attest to the many times fields have been flooded. The fact that the river to the East has not been dredged for many years due, I expect to Environmental rules, further exacerbates annual flooding. This winter alone we had one safe route out of the village due flooding and HS2 restrictions. The access road to the two farms was under water..lucky farmers had tractors !!! local residents don’t normally drive round in tractors. This site is not suitable for development. It should be retained as agricultural land.

2. Site 569 could only fairly be included as a dispersed development model. As this model has been removed from the plan then it surely stands that site 569 should not still be considered in the SWLP.

3. You cannot reasonably build on any land without supplying infrastructure eg shops, schools, medical centres, roads etc. Site 569 has considerable limitations to this. Access would have to be from Hunningham road (flood risk), the so called access from Weston is only a footpath width and exits onto a tight dangerous bend…several years ago a car almost demolished The Old Forge when speeding round said bend. I would further point out that the Hunningham road has an ancient narrow bridge , unsuitable for heavy traffic. This bridge has been closed twice in past 6 years due to large vehicles knocking the parapet down. Direct access from the North is via Weston Lane, another narrow, in parts single lane road. The road to Princethorpe to the East is also susceptible to flooding.
This site would be reliant on vehicular transport only….we have no cycle paths and a very restricted bus timetable. This does not tick any of the sustainability boxes.

4.In conclusion the HELAA fails to appreciate how important this particular part of the Green Belt is in separating Leamington urban area from spreading into the villages of Weston Under Wetherley and Hunningham, as would be inevitable were it to be developed. I strongly feel that Site 569 should not remain in consideration of the SWLP.

Other

ID sylw: 105846

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Rukmani Grace

Objection to House Building– Site Ref 623: Lowes Lane/Walton Road,
Wellesbourne (Well.07B)


I support the objections raised of my fellow residents of Wellesbourne and writing to formally object to the planning application for the construction of houses on
the field located behind the properties “Long Ground” and “The Old Orchard” along Lowes Lane in Wellesbourne (Site Ref 623: Lowes Lane/Walton Road – Well.07B).

I object to this development based on numerous issues that make this site unsuitable for residential development.


1) Flooding Concerns and Flood Zone 3
The field in question is regularly waterlogged, and if developed, would result in significant water runoff along this stretch of the River Dene. It is crucial to highlight that this site is located within Flood Zone 3, which indicates a high risk of flooding. The houses located downhill from the proposed development are already vulnerable to flooding, and the loss of this natural soakaway area would exacerbate this problem. Chapel Street, which has been prone to major flooding in the past 30 years, could see a return of these issues, despite the considerable effort and resources put into flood defences, such as the flood walls and banks funded by the Environment Agency. These vital infrastructure investments could be
rendered ineffective by the proposed development, leading to regular flooding events along Chapel Street.

The risks posed by climate change must also be considered. With increasing instances of extreme weather events, such as heavy rainfall and storms, the likelihood of flooding in this already flood-prone area is expected to rise. The development of this land would remove vital green spaces and natural flood mitigation areas, which would increase surface water runoff and exacerbate local flooding. Given the ongoing impacts of climate change, building
in this area could have long-term consequences that would worsen the flooding risks for residents.


2) Inadequate Access
The proposed development is expected to house up to 100 units, yet access to the site is via two narrow paths onto Walton Road and Lowes Lane. These paths are only wide enough to accommodate one-directional traffic, which will create significant safety hazards and logistical challenges.


3) Safety Hazard from Increased Vehicle Movements
The path onto Lowes Lane is a public footpath (SD121a), frequently used by pedestrians.


The movement of vehicles along this stretch of footpath would not only pose a safety risk to pedestrians but also destroy an important route for local people to exercise and walk their dogs.

4) Increased Traffic Congestion
The development is likely to generate an additional 200 vehicle movements per day. Lowes Lane and Chapel Street, already congested due to parked cars, will face even greater traffic hazards. Similarly, if access to the site is provided via Walton Road, there will be significant congestion at the point of access for Walton Way, an issue that was previously a key concern for another development (the self-build houses behind Walton Way). The proposed development will place further strain on an already heavily trafficked area.

5) Lack of Pedestrian Infrastructure
Sections of both Lowes Lane and Walton Road lack pedestrian footpaths, exacerbating safety concerns for residents, especially parents walking children to the local primary school.Since the new housing estates at Ettington Park and The Grange were built, traffic on Lowes Lane and Chapel Street has already increased. The additional traffic from this proposed development will make it intolerable for pedestrians.


6) Historic and Environmental Significance of the Land
This field has been allocated in the Wellesbourne Neighbourhood Plan as "high" in the landscape character sensitivity assessment, due to its rural setting adjacent to the Wellesbourne Conservation Area. It is an excellent and rare example of medieval “ridge and furrow” agricultural land, which should be preserved for its historical value. Developing this field would significantly disrupt the rural character of the area and detract from the visual and environmental integrity of the conservation area. The Wellesbourne Neighbourhood Plan
explicitly recognises the importance of preserving such areas for their scenic and historical value, and building on this site would undermine that objective.

7) Unexpected Inclusion in the Consultation
This land was not originally mentioned in the Neighbourhood Plan, and it is therefore
surprising to see it included in this consultation.


8) Impact on the Character of Chapel Street and the Wellesbourne Conservation Area
Chapel Street, with its numerous listed buildings, is one of the last remaining areas in Wellesbourne that retains its historic charm. This proposed building development, would detract from the character of this street and negatively impact the desirability and value of the properties in the area, hugely impacting current residence. This land is on the very edge of the Wellesbourne Conservation Area, where both houses and nature are protected, and this development would have a detrimental effect on the area’s character.

9) Strain on Wellesbourne’s Existing Infrastructure
Wellesbourne’s infrastructure is already under strain, with an oversubscribed school,
dentists, and healthcare services. There is also no easily accessible train network, making
the area increasingly difficult to support further development. The addition of these houses
would exacerbate these existing pressures on local amenities and services.


Conclusion
The over-expansion of Wellesbourne in recent years has led to increased strain on local infrastructure, and this proposal would only add to that burden. The development of Site Ref 623 would have a negative impact on the historic character of the village, particularly the conservation area, and contribute to environmental degradation. Moreover, the increased risk of flooding and traffic congestion makes this site an unsuitable choice for housing development. Wellesbourne must remain a desirable place to live for current residents, and
the potential for negative impacts on their lives should not be ignored. I urge you to reconsider this proposal and ensure that future developments are carefully
considered to balance housing needs with the preservation of Wellesbourne’s character, environment, and infrastructure.

And finally, I don’t support any further house building in Wellesbourne. It has been developed far enough. So please reconsider Wellesbourne as a development location, and more as a maintenance location of the existing housing stock.
Thank you for considering my objections.

Other

ID sylw: 105864

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Lucy Slater

The over-expansion of Wellesbourne in recent years has led to increased strain on local infrastructure, and this proposal would only add to that burden. The development of Site Ref 623 would have a negative impact on the historic character of the village, particularly the
conservation area, and contribute to environmental degradation. Moreover, the increased risk of flooding and traffic congestion makes this site an unsuitable choice for housing development. Wellesbourne must remain a desirable place to live for current residents, and the potential for negative impacts on their lives should not be ignored.I urge you to reconsider this proposal and ensure that future developments are carefully considered to balance housing needs with thepreservation of Wellesbourne’s character, environment, and infrastructure.

Other

ID sylw: 105869

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Janine Dickinson

I strongly object to the proposed housing development on Site Ref 623 (Lowes Lane/Walton Road) due to the following concerns:
Flood risk: The site is in FloodZone3 and regularly waterlogged. Further development will exacerbate the flooding in the area.
Inadequate Access & Safety Risks – The site is only accessible via narrow paths leading to Walton Road and Lowes Lane, both unsuitable for increased traffic. Lowes Lane also serves as a public footpath (SD121a), and additional vehicle movements would create safety hazards for pedestrians.
Traffic Congestion – The development could add 200+ vehicle movements daily, worsening congestion on already strained roads like Lowes Lane and Chapel Street, which lack sufficient pedestrian infrastructure.
Heritage & Environmental Impact – The land is historically significant, featuring medieval ridge-and-furrow agriculture and bordering the Wellesbourne Conservation Area. The development would irreversibly damage the area’s rural character.
Strain on Local Services – Wellesbourne’s infrastructure—schools, healthcare, and public transport—is already overstretched. Additional housing will put further pressure on these essential services.
Unexpected Inclusion in Consultation – This site was not originally allocated for development in the Neighbourhood Plan, raising concerns about transparency and planning consistency.

Other

ID sylw: 105879

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Chris Hutchins

I object to proposals for new developments on the field off Cox Crescent (Plan Ref: 633 and 469), adjacent fields, and near Green Acres Nursing Home (Plan Ref: 462, 437, 446 & 478). These developments could cause serious flooding and increase traffic on an already overcrowded road.

Other

ID sylw: 105895

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Alison Selwood

Nifer y bobl: 2

Objection to House Building Site Ref 623:
This site is located within Flood Zone 3, which indicates a high risk of flooding. The usual solution of creating a sink pond to drain the excess water simply would not be sufficient. These vital infrastructure investments could be rendered ineffective leading to regular flooding along Chapel Street. There is no current suitable access point. There is safety Hazard from Increased Vehicle Movements. The area won't be able to cope with additional traffic. The land was not originally included in the Neighbourhood Plan. The development will have an impact on the Wellsbourne Conservation Area. Wellesbourne’s infrastructure is already under strain. The increased risk of flooding and traffic congestion makes this site an unsuitable choice for housing development. The number of houses planned for this site would make little impression on meeting development targets with significant detrimental effects on the local area.

Other

ID sylw: 105907

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Catherine Spratt

The Fell Mill Lane sites 552, 148 and 747.

This area was one of the places that I walked around during the Covid 19 pandemic restrictions. It provided, not only a good walk, but also beautiful views. I learned so much about my town while walking along the footpaths and country lanes. If you build on this land, this vital and uplifting green space will be lost. Shipston already lacks enough green space for its residents.
The Shipston recycling centre is essential to reduce carbon emissions – if it is removed, Shipston’s residents will have to drive further, not only more expense but also producing more carbon.
How will the residents of these new houses get around? They will probably drive to get supplies, deliver their children to schools and go to work: no shops, no improved transport links and no employment opportunities are planned. Thus Shipston and its residents will be even more polluted.
Honington and Shipston bridges are single track and historic constructions. They are not suitable for increased rates of traffic.
The area around Fell Mill Lane is a flood plain. Development would increase the risk of flooding, not only in Shipston but also downstream.

Other

ID sylw: 105916

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Zara Dowler

The grounds for objection are as follows:
1. Impact on local infrastructure
2. Environmental concerns
3. Flood risk
4. Accessibility issues
5. Heritage and Landscape Impact

Other

ID sylw: 105920

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Sworders

Asiant : Sworders

Site G1 has scored highly on the New Settlements HELAA (Part A) with red scores being limited to Transport (Amber/Red) and Call for Sites Coverage Rating (Red).It is stated that the site has scored Amber on Local Wildlife Sites, we would like to confirm that there are no local wildlife sites on or adjacent to G1 (including my client’s land) and as such the site should score Green.Part of the site is affected by surface water flooding, despite the site being located within Flood Zone 1 (that at lowest risk from
fluvial flooding). It is anticipated that as part of the allocation, strategic placement of housing in the areas not affected by surface water flooding will easily overcome this.The site is greenfield land; however, a large proportion of the site is grade 4 agricultural land, with the remaining land being grade 3, and as such would not result in the loss of the best and most versatile land. Lastly, the site has scored Amber/Red for Transport. The SWLP Strategic Transport and Education Assessment of New Settlement Options (WCC) considers that the site is not well served by cycling infrastructure despite the National Cycle Route 48 passing through the sit. We would also like to raise that G1 is located within the Road Opportunity Area 8 as identified by the West Midlands Strategic Sites Study 2024 and as such is a very logical location for a potential settlement in order to deliver these improvements.
It is noted that 3 or 4 new primary schools are needed for 6,000 new dwellings. Whilst G1 is providing circa. 5,360 dwellings, it is anticipated that either 1 or 2 primary schools will be required as part of the allocation. This would in turn provide a school within safe walking distance thus reducing active travel as a site constraint.

Other

ID sylw: 105942

Derbyniwyd: 14/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs. Emma Smith

692 - Hatton Hill
My objections are based on several key concerns outlined below:
- Lack of Educational Infrastructure: The site does not offer any primary or secondary educational facilities, nor is it within a reasonable distance of existing schools. This lack of educational infrastructure will place undue pressure on already overburdened local schools, affecting the quality of education for current and future residents.
- Environmental Impact: The site intersects with areas that have a baseline habitat score between 40-80, indicating moderate ecological value. Development here could disrupt local wildlife and degrade the natural environment, which is contrary to sustainable development principles.
Agricultural Land Quality: Although the site does not intersect with Grade 1 or 2 agricultural land, it is important to preserve all agricultural spaces to ensure food security and maintain the rural character of the area.
- Accessibility and Connectivity: The site is not well-connected to existing transport networks, which could lead to increased traffic congestion and pollution as residents rely on private vehicles for commuting. This is not aligned with the goals of reducing carbon emissions and promoting sustainable transport options.
- Community Impact: The proposed development does not integrate well with the existing community, potentially leading to social fragmentation. The
lack of community facilities and services will hinder the creation of a cohesive and vibrant community. In conclusion, I urge the planning committee to reconsider the inclusion of Site Ref ID 692 in the South Warwickshire Local Plan. The potential negative impacts on education, environment, and community cohesion outweigh the benefits of development at this location.

Other

ID sylw: 105947

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Chris Stewart

Site 600
The infrastructure of Malthouse Lane itself, and the adjoining roads is not suitable in the current climate let alone adding another 52 extra homes and all the associated issues that this will bring.
Firstly the proposed site itself is situated along a single-track access road. Surely this is not viable for a possible 52 homes, it wouldn't be possible for any builders lorries or work vans to access the site and if it were to go ahead, there would be in excess of 100 extra cars, all using a single track access. How would any emergency service vehicles access the site, let alone any council refuse collectors? Would all these new properties be expected to put all their bins on malthouse lane on collection day. There is no access to this site.
If these houses were to be built then you would need to ensure that the already, over-worked sewage system was massively upgraded. The roads around this area are majority single track and they would struggle with the extra traffic. There are no regular bus services and only one train per hour if people require public transport.

The area that has been suggested borders right next to Terry's pool which is a site of special scientific interest, surely any development would have a detrimental effect on the wildlife and the nature in this area.

Yes

ID sylw: 105951

Derbyniwyd: 15/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Amanda Bradshaw

I would like to raise a number of concerns regarding the HELAS assessment of site 569 (Land to South of Weston Under Wetherley) and would request that this site should be entirely removed from consideration within the local plan : - This site could only reasonably be included in a dispersed development model, however, after the previous consultation led to this model being removed from the plan, site 569 should not "remain in consideration of the SWLP". - The HELAS assessment considerably underestimates how unsuitable this site is for development. For example, the flood risk is not limited to a boundary of the site as considerable areas beyond this have flooded twice this year already (with photographs available) making the whole site unsuitable for development. - The HELAS proforma simply states this is "greenbelt" and so fails to take into account that this is a particularly important area of greenbelt separating Leamington from merging into the villages of Weston and Hunningham. Any development in this area would also significantly diminish the greenspace between Leamington and Coventry and so leave the area subject to Coventry's Sprawl.
- The HELAS assessment fails to take into account the considerable infrastructure limitations of the site. Access to the site from Weston under Wetherley is via an exceptionally narrow and prolonged strip of land. The East of the site is limited by a river with the only viable bridge East being a single lane historic bridge into Hunningham which is unsuited for any large commercial vehicles (it is already susceptible to vehicle strikes). Similarly to the North of the Site, the direct route to the A445 (which would be a major route to transport from this site), is also restricted to single lane traffic on Weston Road. Whilst there is a road to Leamington Spa via a bridge over HS2 this does not include cycle lanes meaning it is only a narrow bridge with limited pedestrian capacity and no accessible footpath to Leamington. In effect therefore, not only would development on this site be entirely reliant on motorised vehicle transport, but those vehicles would be heavily constrained by pinch points to the North, East and West with no Southern route available.

I object wholeheartedly to the development of this land for the above reasons

Yes

ID sylw: 105957

Derbyniwyd: 16/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Thomas Webster

Ref 514 - Land at Station Lane Kingswood
Noise and Air Pollution: New developments are likely to increase traffic, leading to higher levels of noise and air pollution. This could disrupt the peaceful environment that current residents moved to Kingswood to enjoy. You can request detailed air and noise impact assessments to understand the full implications of the development.

[Redacted point - respondent cites immigration as a burden on homes and school places]

I understand your concerns about the potential demographic changes and their impact on the local community. Here are some points you might consider when raising objections:
. Integration Challenges: Large-scale developments can lead to rapid demographic changes, which might challenge community cohesion.
. Community Safety: With changes in demographics, there might be concerns about community safety. You can request that the local council implements measures to ensure that the area remains safe for all residents, including children attending local schools.
Evidence-Based Concerns: Request that the local council provides evidence and data on crime rates and how they plan to address any potential increases in crime. This includes ensuring adequate policing and community safety measures are in place.
.Community Policing: Increased Police Presence: Suggest an increase in community policing efforts to ensure that any potential issues are addressed promptly and that residents feel safe and secure.

These development changes will deeply affect the physical, environmental, mental and financial state of the local community and area forever. Aswell their own safety. The entire majority of the local community, residents of Kingswood and Lapworth/Hockley heath area already deeply oppose this top down decision from the unpopular Labour Starmer Government in Westminster.
We never wanted this, we did not nor currently do consent to this top down decision at all.

I respectfully request that planners and councillors refuse the allocation proposal for the site(s) referenced, based on the reasons provided

Yes

ID sylw: 105961

Derbyniwyd: 18/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Rachel Walmsley

In addition I'd like to add to my previous concerns raised specifically regarding site 569 (land to south of Weston Under Wetherley) and would request that this site should be entirely removed from consideration within the local plan:
• From what I've read, the assessment considerably underestimates how unsuitable this site is for development. For example, the flood risk is not limited to a boundary of the site as considerable areas beyond this have flooded twice this year already making the whole site unsuitable for development.
• The proforma simply states this is "greenbelt" and so fails to take into account that this is a particularly important area of greenbelt separating Leamington from merging into the villages of Weston and Hunningham. Any development in this area would also significantly diminish the greenspace between Leamington and Coventry and so leave the area subject to Coventry's Sprawl.
• The assessment also fails to take into account the considerable infrastructure limitations of the site. Access to the site from Weston under Wetherley is via an exceptionally narrow and prolonged strip of land. The East of the site is limited by a river with the only viable bridge East being a single lane historic bridge into Hunningham which is unsuited for any large commercial vehicles (it has already been closed on a number of occasions in the past five years due to vehicles colliding with the bridge). To the North of the Site, the direct route to the A445 (which would be a major route to transport from this site), is also restricted to single lane traffic on Weston Road. Whilst there is a road to Leamington Spa via a future bridge over HS2 this does not include cycle lanes meaning it is only a narrow bridge with limited pedestrian capacity and no accessible footpath to Leamington. In effect therefore, not only would development on this site be entirely reliant on motorised vehicle transport, but those vehicles would be heavily constrained by pinch points to the North, East and West with no Southern route available.

Finally as noted previously, the Climate Emergency must not be used as justification to develop on greenbelt land. This is a weak and bizarre argument. Why do something to make it worse? There are other ways of mitigating against the climate emergency without developing on greenbelt land, which itself is truly harmful.

Yes

ID sylw: 105962

Derbyniwyd: 19/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Robert Birkmyre

HELAS PLAN - RESPONSE - Ref: ID: 569

We strongly oppose the proposal that the area designated by ID: 569 be considered as a suitable area for development for many practical reasons:

The HELAS considerably underestimates how unsuitable this site is for development.
The flood risk is very considerable as large areas are known to have flooded over many years. The ground is very wet all year round as walkers will tell you.
There is a complete lack of infrastructure to support it.
Access to the area from any direction is very restricted. Existing roads are very narrow and in some cases bounded by listed buildings. HS2 forms another huge barrier. The river poses another significant problem and often floods.
The area forms a green belt barrier between the heavily populated regions of Leamington Spa and Coventry.
This green belt site is important to wildlife. Development would completely restrict the need that wildlife has for diversity to survive. Wildlife green corridors would be decimated.

It would appear that the sheer cost of creating the development would negate the profit which must be made to making building viable.

Since you have discounted a dispersed development model for this area, we would request that this be site removed from the plan for the above reasons.

Other

ID sylw: 105967

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Nick Bacon

believe Site 88 is unsuitable for development as part of the SWLP. Site 88’s role within the Green Belt is an area of relative importance, when compared with other sites under consideration and it provides an effective barrier to ‘development creep’. The serious risks to pedestrian and road safety posed by its location and access point to the B4439 combined with the historical and archaeological characteristics of the land and buildings render the site completely inappropriate for development.
I recommend that Site 88 is not considered any further and is excluded from the SWLP.

Yes

ID sylw: 105970

Derbyniwyd: 19/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Carol Bloor

Infill Projects – Station Lane area – C161 – Arden Lodge – C169 East of Station Lane - see objections below
• Station Lane -Any development along Station Lane would increase traffic volume, which is already at a dangerous level for pedistrians, residents and Lapworth CE School.
• Parking/traffic – homes opposite the school in Station Lane have no driveways/garages – so there is a permanent situation of dozens of parked cars. During pick up/drop off at Lapworth CE Primary School this part of Station Lane is literally not passable without cars needing to mount the pavement - it is highly unsafe. The entrance to Meadow Lane is frequently either blocked or drivers have to attempt to pull out ‘blind’ due to parking.
• Pedestrians - Pedestrians and school parents/children often walk along Station Lane. The majority of the road has no pavements and is not wide enough for a pedestrian and two cars to pass resulting in a treacherous situation – Parents often have to move pushchairs onto grass or driveways as cars approach and at night pedestrians often ‘wave’ torches to alert oncoming cars to give them space (this is also the case on Rising lane, Chessetts wood), there are many near misses. An increase in traffic would increase this danger.
• School/Doctors - Both of these facilities are under pressure ie there is no additional capacity for any increase in population.
• Sewers/water network – please see above - this network is not fit for additional housing in Station Lane.
• Flooding – see above – additional housing in Station Lane could create a flood risk due to increase in impervious surface area.
• Environment –the open spaces between homes allow spaces for the environment to thrive – building in these spaces will destroy an already shrinking habitat for animals and birds.
• C161 - if permitted would result in a major construction site within feet of a school and homes posing health risks, plus require a busy traffic junction on already congested and dangerous part of station lane next to a school. Plus there is a low bridge on the Old Warwick Road in Lapworth which would result in any high construction vehicles being rerouted along station lane which is narrow with no pavements as mentioned above.
I would urge councillors to visit Station Lane during school pick up to witness the dangers I have outlined (and consult with the school on the level of complaints). Plus engage with the Environment Agency in relation to local flooding and ecology which would be destroyed.

Other

ID sylw: 105988

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Malachy Clarke

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed new developments in the field off of Cox Crescent (Plan Ref 469 and 633) and the adjacent fields near Green Acres Nursing Home (Plan Ref: 437, 446, 462 and 478).

While I understand the need for housing development, I believe that this particular project would have significant negative impacts on our environment, community character, and quality of life.

1. Environmental Impact:
The fields in question are not just empty plots of land; they are vital green spaces that contribute to the local ecosystem. They provide habitats for wildlife, help in maintaining biodiversity, and act as natural flood defenses. Building on these fields would lead to habitat destruction, increased flooding risks (especially as the fields are on a slope, and a loss of green space that benefits us all.

2. Community Character:
Our community is known for its picturesque landscapes and open spaces. The construction of new houses on these fields would irreversibly alter the character of our area, turning it into a more urbanized and less desirable place to live.

3. Infrastructure Strain:
The current infrastructure, including roads, schools, and healthcare facilities, is not equipped to handle a sudden increase in population. The proposed development would place additional strain on these resources, leading to overcrowding, longer wait times, and a decrease in the quality of services available to residents.

In conclusion, I strongly oppose the proposed housing development on the surrounding fields. I believe that preserving these green spaces is crucial for the well-being of our community, the environment, and future generations. I kindly request that you take these concerns into account and explore alternative options that align with the best interests of our community.

No

ID sylw: 105998

Derbyniwyd: 14/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Steph Johnson

The strategic growth area of B1 - Land at Hatton is unsuitable for further development due to the
cost of implementation, impact of wildlife, the fact it is an unsustainable site and the impact on
the character of the village and the lack of prevention of urban sprawl. Please see my other
objection for specific points on B1 in its own objection.

I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed development on Site 160, as outlined in
the South Warwickshire Local Plan. One of the primary issues is the existing traffic conditions on
Birmingham Road and Hockley Road.
Traffic Conditions
These roads are frequently cited by residents as being dangerous due to unsafe over-taking and
speeding. The council has confirmed in writing that there is no funding available to improve
these roads. I recently had an accident on the Birmingham road recently when a highway
vehicle failed to place cones out when parked on this 40 mph road. Adding further development
to Site 160 would likely exacerbate these issues, increasing congestion and posing additional
risks to both drivers and pedestrians (including a road where children cross to go to school at
Ferncumbe and when coming home on the bus from Henley in Arden school) . Moreover, the
development could strain local infrastructure, which is already under pressure and it would be an
expensive option for the tax payer.
Previous rejections of planning on this site
Previously this site has been rejected for planning. It should not have reached this stage of
inclusion due to:
It's proximity to a Scout CampThe fact that it borders ancient woodlandThe fact that children
take part in educational activities within the wood from the local schoolThe fact that there are
many footpaths enjoyed by walkers All of the above, clearly showing that the land is used for
community amenities and social interaction.
Potential of a dangerous entry point onto the Hockley Road
The Hockley Road stretch which holds the only entry point to this land is dangerous and a
junction will be too expensive to implement.
Incorrect assessment in the HELAA.
This piece of land has been incorrectly assessed in the HELAA with regard to bio-diversity and
impact on nature. The HELAA completely disregards any land other than the Ancient Woodland
of holding bio-diversity and nature.

The safety and well-being of our community should be a priority, and I urge the council to
consider these factors carefully.I recommend exploring alternative sites that do not compromise
road safety, animal, ecological and community welfare.

No

ID sylw: 106011

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Claire OReilly

Ref 169 - Land east of Station Lane

While proximity to the station is one potential benefit of developing land east of Station Lane, this
is outweighed by concerns regarding:Increased car travel and the associated highwasy safety issues
on local roads,The lack of local services and employment, leading to more travel, The limited
capacity of the primary school, The impact on the villages rural character,
The loss of informal recreation opportunities,The degradation of the canal corridor,The risk of
increased flooding.

No

ID sylw: 106014

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Tony Dalton

• Integrity and Character of the Village, which is why Green Belt Protection was put in place in the first place.
• Overdevelopment of this village. As I said earlier after the Cala development any further development would be disproportionate and harmful to the balance of the community.
• The damage to Infrastructure and Services, being the schools and utilities, as further development would worsen the existing strain on these essential services.
• Traffic Impact and Road Constraints any further development will lead to an increase in the traffic on already narrow congested roads.
• Ecological and Wildlife Concerns the sites are home to a variety of wildlife species and habitats, which means that it will lead to the destruction of these ecosystems, reducing biodiversity and threatening protected species.
• Environmental Impact: Noise and Air Quality Increased vehicle numbers would significantly deteriorate the air quality and raise noise pollution levels.
• However, I see the real problem is the effect of building on these sites on the water table. We already have this problem, which has resulted in annual floods, in the Severn Valley, due to the water surface runoff from new developments. Surely, we don’t want this in Leek Wootton.