Other

ID sylw: 106035

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Jonathan Hince

Any new developments should be extensions of existing housing areas.331 West of Furze Hill Road and 173 Land at Shoulderway Lane are prime examples.

Residential development should not be considered at:
460 South of Darlingscote road is next to the High school and Leisure Centre and should be kept as a possible extension to these.
507 and the land around Tilemans Lane should be kept for expansion of the Industrial Area.
62 is between the Sports Club and the guide field and should not be considered for Safeguarding reasons,and has been used as for Junior football pitches in the past.Being repossessed with the intention of developing the area,which mostly lies within the floodplain of the river Stour.
Any land East of the river should be discounted,as there is a large floodplain and would be detrimental to wildlife in the curtilage of the river.

No

ID sylw: 106047

Derbyniwyd: 19/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Finlay McAllan

I write to you in connection to the South Warwickshire Local Plan and in particular the proposed Weston Under Wetherley site development - reference number stated above.

There are a number of points I'd like to draw to your attention:

Firstly I strongly oppose any further greenbelt development projects in the area, taking into account the already severe scarring left across the landscape by the HS2 development .

And then there's the HELAS assessment of the site. I believe that site 569 should be entirely removed from consideration within the plan. First and foremost because it totally underestimates the impacts of flooding - something that regularly occurs here.

Secondly, access to the proposed site would be difficult if taking into account the current road structure - especially the limited access granted by the old bridge at Hunningham, which seems to be regularly under repair due to oversized vehicles hitting it or poor driving causing damage.

Add to that, the (currently under construction) bridge between Weston & Cubbington does not seem to cater for pedestrian or cycle access, which would effectively leave the site fully dependant on cars or limited public service transport - both of which would be subject to the fragility of the aforementioned bridge.

There are many other reasons that I feel this site is unsuitable and should no longer be considered, but I believe that current HS2 development of the land, limited site access roads and regular flooding are reasons enough that the site 569 should be removed from a list being considered.

Other

ID sylw: 106067

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Muzamil Khan

Access to Malthouse Lane and therefore to the site is via the bridge, Springbrook Lane and Small Lane.
The bridge has access for one car only and which gets very busy during the day. There is no proper junction or right of way on the bridge which often causes traffic jams because those unfamiliar with the bridge get confused and do not allow other drivers to pass. There is also the point that it is a tourist hotspot and many visitors park on the bridge where no parking is allowed, which causes further issues for traffic.
Historically, there have been issues with the traffic on the bridge and a few years ago that traffic and the rain water caused it to be closed off because it was impassable.
Access via Springbrook Lane and Small Lane is also restricted because these are proper country lanes, with no road markings and no lighting.
If the development does go ahead it will create a pinch point and hotspot for traffic through one access point at the park, but that road is not set up for such works.

These three access roads are already badly maintained and on Small Lane the road is also only wide enough for one vehicle at a time.

The development will cause issues in the short term with traffic and noise. Whilst in theory there is space for the development, the existing road structure and location of the site means that there is insufficient space to build and there will be a detrimental effect on the local area.

If the development was in a location where it was a brand new development being built on a site which could cope with the changes to the infrastructure then the plan would be viable.

Other

ID sylw: 106078

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Lawrence Messling

Site Ref ID-569
I am strongly opposed to the development of this site and ask that it be removed from consideration within the local plan.
There are numerous reasons why it is manifestly unsuitable for further development.
Development would constitute a very significant incursion into greenbelt land which has intrinsic environmental value and provides important environmental amenity to the neighbouring populations.
It is part of an area which is extensively used by walkers and cyclists who travel from the surrounding areas to do so.
In so far as the HELAS assessment does not recognise its beauty or value or minimises this, it is quite wrong in doing so.
The site is and would be affected by severe limitations in relation to vehicle access (exacerbated by the presence of HS2). Development would encourage an over reliance on cars and an inevitable increase in motorised traffic volumes. This would be inconsistent with proper environmental policy and would significantly reduce the enjoyment and safety of the many cyclists who enjoy the beauty and the relative tranquility of the area.
The river Leam and its tributary is an important feature of the site. There is regular flooding within the site affecting significant areas which the HELAS assessment underestimates the scale and impact of and which makes the site unsuitable for development.
The land is part of an important green corridor stretching of Leamington Spa along the Leam valley. It should be valued and nurtured as an important part of this and if possible steps should be taken to remedy any lack of continuity in the corridor rather than destroy or undermine it. It represents a considerable environmental amenity for local people. If there is further development or change it should be to support richer and more diverse wildlife. It should not be built over and so lost to future generations.

Other

ID sylw: 106080

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Yvonne Morris

The villagers in Wellesbourne have generally been understanding on the need to build more homes in and around the village.

This is despite extreme concern that in spite of money paid a few years back to stop any floods we have still come frighteningly close and there is no doubt that building swathes of homes put us all in greater danger of this happening again.

We simply cannot and do not approve of yet more housing in the area mentioned not to mention the heavy duty traffic disrupting our country lanes and causing havoc for the many pedestrians and bikers which regularly use these roads.

And there is also the fact it will change the heart of a beautiful village and the surrounding countryside.

Other

ID sylw: 106096

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Stephanie Bramwell-Lawes

It is disappointing to hear that green belt land – which should be protected – is being considered for development when there are other, more suitable, locations available. Not only is the green belt a recreational area, but it is home to a wide variety of wildlife. A development would not only cause significant disruption to existing residents; it would also be hugely damaging to the local ecosystem and result in a loss of crucial biodiversity.
Moreover, a development would only exacerbate existing infrastructure issues. An increase in housing will only increase the strain on local schools and medical facilities in such a small village. Not to mention the increase in traffic will impact congestion on roads and increase noise and air pollution in the area.

I am also deeply concerned that a development is proposed on such a steeply sloped area of land where there is surely a risk of post-construction flooding, which would cause damage to properties at the bottom of the hill.
Given the abundance of land in the surrounding county – that is not green belt land – I respectfully ask that the council explore alternative options that pose less risk to the environment and the community.

Other

ID sylw: 106102

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Duncan Reading

Ref ID- 623
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,

Other

ID sylw: 106108

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: HARRY WILSON

As a resident who has lived in Leek Wootton for over 20 years there are three areas indicated in red on the plan for housing. We have already had to accept the ruling by the government inspector for 83 houses on the police headquarters within the village. This is a complete travesty of justice, and would appear to be led not by logic, but by the acceptance of a large bid for 4 acres with no thought as to the damage within the village, such as the destruction of 100 trees, the wildlife of which there are numerous protected species and a large impact upon the traffic within the centre of the village. The community has been ignored and to a large part see no point in putting their thoughts forward for the south Warwickshire Local plan as it has been clearly demonstrated over the past three years, the community has been ignored on very occasions
Land to North and South of Hill Wootton Road, Leek Wootton Ref 116 this is close to the A46 I will enlarge the village. Both of these factors were brought into account by the government inspector, when he assessed the site in 2016.
The Warwickshire Golf and Country Club Ref 2 this parcel of land to the north of the golf club is on an incline and opposite the local school. This is unsuitable as it is it is an historic site and will spoil the views towards the 12th century church
Land near Black Spinney ref 603 this is a site on the right hand side as you leave Leek Wotton village hall and head towards Kenilworth on the Warwick Road. Any traffic from the site will have to enter the right road and head over towards Kenilworth which is already overloaded with traffic or we'll have to turn and enter through the village towards the A46.
This section of the road is already congested, as there is a constant danger of an accident occurring at the anchor junction.
The three sites detailed above should not be put forward into the South Warwickshire plan as this village will lose its identity and cannot afford to have an increase of traffic and all the problems associated with that

Other

ID sylw: 106114

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Jonathan Atkinson

I need to strongly object to houses on site 148. The river and sewage system are overloaded. The school is full. There is little work, commuting is unsustainable and would put pressure on the single track roads through Honington and Barcheston which bypass an already clogged one way system in Shipston

Other

ID sylw: 106117

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: David Blackwell

Site 67 – End of Village Street (Village Farm Garden)
The big garden at Village Farm might handle one house if it’s done right, but anything more would wreck the edge of the village. It’s quiet and rural here, and too many houses would ruin that. Plus, access has to be off Village Street—trying to use Long Itchington Road would make traffic a nightmare and isn’t safe. I read in your planning rules (NPPF Paragraph 115, I think) that developments shouldn’t mess up road safety, and that fits here. One decent house, maybe, but that’s it—keep it small to protect how things are.

Site 221 – East of School Hill
I’m totally against building on this field. They tried about four years back and got told no—nothing’s changed since. From my place at 22 Village Street, it’d block the views north from our bedrooms and garden, right down to the Stags Head Inn. It’d be an eyesore, plain and simple. Your rules (NPPF Paragraph 130) say new builds should make things better, not worse for people already here, and this fails that test. Punch Taverns owned it before the 2011 auction and got refused too—same problems still apply. No reason to say yes now when it’s been no before.

Site 66 – Sydens Place
Building near the River Leam at Sydens Place just doesn’t work. I’ve seen that area flood over the years—it’s a risk that’s only getting worse with the weather these days. Your policies (NPPF Paragraphs 159–169) say don’t build where it floods unless there’s no choice, and there’s no good reason for it here. Raising the land might stop houses flooding, but it’d push water somewhere else, which isn’t fair—your Flood and Water Management Act says you’ve got to watch that. It’s a bad spot for homes, end of story.

Broader Concerns
On top of all this, putting houses on all three sites would change Offchurch for good—and not in a good way. It’s a small, rural place, and modern estates would kill that. Your rules (NPPF Paragraph 174) talk about keeping the countryside’s character, and that’s what I’m asking for. Another big thing: all these proposed sites—67, 221, and 66—are in the green belt and a conservation area. From what I understand, that means building here is supposed to be really limited, to keep the countryside open and protect the village’s history. Your rules (like NPPF Paragraph 147 for green belt and Paragraph 200 for conservation areas) say development should only happen if there’s a damn good reason, and I don’t see one here.

These sites aren’t just any old fields—they’re part of what makes Offchurch special, and they need to stay that way.
After nearly 60 years here, I want the village to stay how it is for the next lot who come along. Please say no to these plans.

Other

ID sylw: 106120

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Helen Roberts

Therefore please find below my main comments regarding the SWLP:

As noted in an earlier communication Figure 5 or Figure 6 (which are key images within the document) the route of HS2 is note shown, I know you pointed me to the interactive map, where eventually the HS2 layer was added, but surely to not show on the main maps the train line and associated land-grab is at best misleading. The HS2 line will serve as a boundary to which development may be permitted and/or beyond which development may not be permitted, in much the same way as bypass roads serve as development boundaries. I remain extremely concerned that it's omission from the base layer maps, invalidates much of the SWLP and therefore the consultation process. At a minimum, for example, the somewhat arbitrary "priority area" circles in Figure 5 North of Leamington should be more specifically demarcated so that the HS2 route forms the northernmost boundary of the priority area to the North of Leamington.

Further development of green built is wrong. Those who chose to live in countryside areas rather than urban areas have done so for good reason, Green built is there to protect the landscape and more importantly, to protect productive farm land - we cannot continue to erode our natural resource in this way. Each day global stability worsens and the need to be as 'self-sufficient' for food grows greater - so taking yet more farm land for housing is a recipe for disaster!

Of particular concern to me is 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, located on a blind bend - it would be impossible to create good enough sight splays at the junction without removing 1 or even 2 listed buildings!!! The East of the site is limited by a river with the only viable bridge East being a single lane Grade II Listed 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 Lane. This stretch of road is already plagued by speeding motorists and typically single-vehcile collisions (causing considerable property damage and services resources) and would become an even greater risk to life were the majority of traffic going straight through from Weston Lane to the Hunningham road. This all suggests a new access road would be needed from the Fosse, but then the small matter of HS2 gets in the way! I therefore look forward to this site being removed completely from the list

No

ID sylw: 106125

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: MLJ Jasinski

Regarding the proposed developments Refid 16: Ardens Grafton and Temple Grafton are non-service villages and there is insufficient infrastructure supporting these developments. The land is currently farmed and changing its use would affect future food security. The roads surrounding these villages are already congested at peak times and it can take up to twenty minutes to access the A46 at the Billesley junction and a roundabout has recently been ruled out due to the cost.

Yes

ID sylw: 106137

Derbyniwyd: 24/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Gary Cramp

Ref 53 - Land adjoining Mill HouseThis is a large development of houses which will put a great strain on the local education and
medical services in Lapworth. Having been a resident of Lapworth for over 20 years and having
raised our daughters here I know that the public transport services are not very good out of the
rush hour. My children had to rely on a lift of a parent in the school to get back from Solihull.
School finished at 3 the next train back to Lapworth was 2 hours later. Consequently this new
development would vastly increase the amount of traffic on the road network during the already
busy times.
I believe the my objections to the two developments C1 and 53 above are important because
the are unsustainable without increasing the local infrastructure massively and consequently
changing the villages of Lapworth and Rowington beyond any recognition of what they are now.
I believe that the type of housing will be expensive and unaffordable for a lot of the local
population.
I respectfully request that planners and councillors refuse the allocation proposal for
the site(s) referenced, based on the reasons provided.

No

ID sylw: 106145

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Howard Taylor

I disagree with the sifting out of site Ref ID 11 at Part A. The site was recommended for approval for 25 homes by SDC planning officers so there are not significant constraints that would justify sifting out. The Part A assessment that 53% of the site is subject to surface water flooding is incorrect and detailed local flood risk analysis allowed officers to recommend approval previously. 10% of the field at the bottom of the site was set aside previously as a flood relief channel/reservoir. Historic water depths there have been low. If the site boundary needs to be moved to 'pass' part A then I agree to this. Impacts to the Conservation Area and Cotswold AONB were also addressed in the previous scheme. Brailes is well-located with services such as a primary school, village hall, sports fields, shops and public house in easy walking distance from the site. Development would help protect the future of these facilities. The site has existing residential uses on three sides.

No

ID sylw: 106148

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: William White

I object to Ref IDs 562 and 16. Visual impacts on the rural approach to the village were key factors in rejecting parcels 1,3,4,5, and 6 in the 2021 SHLAA Land Parcels Assessment. Developing these sites would result in loss of Grade 1/2 agricultural land and wildlife habitat. The HELAA scores do not account for the Little Haven nature reserve bordering the site which is part of the County Council Local Biodiversity Plan. Development will lead to coalescence between Bidford and Ardens Grafton. Surface water flooding is an issue on George Elm Lane and Grafton Lane either side of these fields and development would increase flooding by the old railway bridge and up to the Golden Cross. Do not add more traffic to narrow roads with steep hills which regularly see accidents. Traffic would increase through Ardens Grafton and Temple Grafton to access the A46. Rail can only be accessed by crossing the medieval bridge in Bidford to access Honeybourne where there is very limited parking.

No

ID sylw: 106149

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: J Rogers

As a resident of Deans Green, I object to site ref 737 and am concerned about the potential impacts on the local community if it is allocated and developed. The site is unsuitable due to highway constraints, environmental impact and infrastructure strain. Hall End Road is single track, only accessible via another single track road with a 4.lm railway bridge, restricting larger vehicle access. The area serves equestrian facilities and a veterinary practice, increasing animal safety risks from development. The site is Green Belt, contravening NPPF Paragraphs 142-144. Local Schools and healthcare are at capacity. The proposal threatens biodiversity and increases flood risk, failing Stratford Upon Avon Core Strategy Policies CS.1, CS.5 and CS.26.

No

ID sylw: 106156

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: N M S & N M Khan

Nifer y bobl: 2

As residents of Earlswood, we object to the housing proposal on Site ID 600. Earlswood has experienced much housing development in recent years and cannot sustain more.

The proposed development would bring housing up to the edge of the lakes which would spoil the view from the Causeway. Our garden regularly floods and building on the land at the back of the house is unsuitable. Our privacy would be impacted by new gardens overlooking our houses. The area has narrow country roads and residents are severely tested in the summer by visitors who do not take care of the area. The local schools are not large enough and school buses already have issues parking to allow children to board. Local wildlife would be impacted greatly and the character of the area irreparably damaged.

No

ID sylw: 106158

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Martin Kelly

re. Site 600

I am writing to categorically object to plans to develop the land at the rear of my property.
Not only would our outlook and privacy be completely demised, but a virgin green belt wildlife habitat would be forever lost.
The approach roads from all directions are narrow and largely unpaved , with walkers, horse riders and cyclists all using them as well as motorists, it can be overwhelmingly congested…. The impact of up to 52 more homes with their vehicles would be devastating.
Our local sewers are barely coping as it is, and the flood waters are already a major problem along the road, a large natural soak away such as this to be lost would be catastrophic.

No

ID sylw: 106159

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: John Lange

Objection to infill development East Side of Station Lane, Lapworth. HELAA B Assessment Site # 30 and #169.

- HARM TO RURAL CHARACTER AND VILLAGE IDENTITY
- ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS
- IMPACT ON INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES
- HIGHWAY SAFETY AND TRAFFIC CONCERN
- IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
- AIR AMBULANCE
- VILLAGE ENVELOPE AND GREEN BELT

Conclusion
I strongly urge the Planning Authority to refuse these applications in order to protect the character and community well-being of Lapworth. Rural villages should not be subjected to inappropriate infill development which undermines their character and sustainability.

Yes

ID sylw: 106160

Derbyniwyd: 25/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Elizabeth Mills

I refer to the SWLP Consultation and wish to comment on the above plan reference numbers [633 & 469] off Marton Road which is adjacent to the Lilac Field Development constructed some 7 years ago by Bloor.

This area is a serious flood risk. There is already serious flooding which occurs on the Marton Road affecting houses adjacent to Plan Ref 633 (Willow Grove) some of which is caused by the Lilac Fields Development. Following planning permission for Lilac Fields the developer only found the boggy land after building commenced. The houses had to be built higher on rafters due to the amount of water. Two attenuation ponds were created which are full in autumn winter months, together with the culverts which drain into them. If building is permitted on these fields, which are on a slope, under reference 633 and 469 the flooding which ensues to the development and surrounding area will be colossal!

I am extremely worried that development may be allowed in this area. If it is considered I require evidence that the area has been assessed as regards the flooding risk before anything goes ahead, and proof there will absolutely be no flooding caused. I would go as far as to say further development should not be considered in any way.

Notwithstanding the flooding, the infrastructure, as it is, does not support further development. If there is to be one exit from the development onto Marton Road from these developments, this is already an extremely busy road and struggles to join it already exist. This proposed development would cause a colossal problem.

Likewise any development at reference numbers 462, 437,446 and 478 of the plan would exacerbate the flooding problem being just across the Marton Road in the same vicinity as the previously referred to developments above. Both areas of proposed developments are just below a sharp bend on a very busy road and it would be dangerous exiting the developments at that point onto the main road.

Yes

ID sylw: 106164

Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Tasia Vasile

Following the latest plans that affects my area, I object to proposed 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.
Key Concerns:
• Flooding Risk: Our current drainage system, including the attenuation ponds, will NOT be able to cope with additional development, putting the area at serious risk of flooding.
• Traffic Issues: Only one exit from the area – and the main road is already problematic. More development means more traffic, making the situation worse.
• Slope Concerns: The fields are on a slope, which increases the risk of runoff and flooding.

Yes

ID sylw: 106181

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: caroline owen

Cala as site promoter support inclusion of site 348 in the emerging SWLP but with the below comments on HELAA scoring.

1. Allocating a point for 'ground-mounted solar power opportunities' is arbitrary without any prospect of the site coming forward for that use. The Council's assessment is that 50% is unsuitable for such a use and the site is relatively small so wouldn't be viable.
2. Two points are assigned for 'Listed Buildings'. One is for a milepost which is overgrown with no prominence. Development would improve the setting. The other is for farm buildings but no assessment of potential impacts was undertaken. We object to the automatic assumption of harm.
3. Similarly, two points have been assigned for proximity to ancient monuments. King John's Mound is separated from the site by an existing industrial estate.
4. Recent improvements have been made to and around Warwick Road. The site is located off a B road which has undergone safety and accessibility improvements. There is an existing bus stop with shelter adjacent to the site. There are existing safe pedestrian and cycle routes which could be improved further as part of residential development. Connectivity and transport scoring should be revised.

Other

ID sylw: 106207

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Sir Richard Hamilton Will Trust

Asiant : Carter Jonas

The Trust suggests Land south of Wellesbourne has the potential to be allocated for development. It is available and suitable for development, achievable later in the plan period. The available land is set out at Annex 1 to this letter.

The Trust would like to see well-designed, integrated, development, with strong landscaping, and accessible open space. The development could deliver not only homes that are needed locally but also the services and facilities needed by the new and existing community.

The site is adjacent to the built form of Wellesbourne and not located within any environmental designations. Areas of flood risk would be outside of the developable area and part of open space and biodiversity management. The site is not in a mineral safeguarding area or a National Landscape. The site is not in a conservation area and listed buildings are some distance away. There are no TPOs but some individual and groups of trees that will be considered as well as hedgerows on field boundaries.

There is a locally-identified area of landscape quality which would be used to direct the layout and design of development. Proposals would be landscape-led, with quality green spaces, and landscaped edges. The site is accessible from the A429 and potentially also from the B4086. There is a bus stop north of the site. Public rights of way and cycle links are close by and there is a bus stop just north of the site. The surrounding roads have footpaths.

Yes

ID sylw: 106228

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Antony Jones

I am writing to formally express my opposition to the proposed housing development on greenbelt land near, Hatton New Community (Ref ID 153), Land off Hockley Road, Hatton Green (Ref ID 160), Land adjoining Southside, Hatton (Ref ID 136), Land adjoining Birmingham Road, Hatton Green (Ref ID 159). I believe that this proposal, if allowed to proceed, would have significant and lasting negative effects on our environment, community, and quality of life.

The greenbelt plays a critical role in preserving the natural landscape, supporting biodiversity, and maintaining open spaces for both current and future generations. Developing this land for housing would irrevocably harm the ecological balance and disrupt wildlife habitats that are essential for local flora and fauna. The destruction of green spaces would also decrease the overall well-being of residents who rely on these areas for recreation, relaxation, and connection to nature.

Additionally, this development would exacerbate the already pressing issue of urban sprawl, which compromises the character and liveability of our surrounding areas. Greenbelt land should be safeguarded to help prevent overcrowding, protect agricultural lands, and maintain the distinct separation between urban and rural areas. The proposed development would contradict the spirit of greenbelt protection, which is intended to maintain the integrity of natural landscapes and prevent unsustainable growth.

I also have concerns about the increased strain this development would place on local infrastructure and services. It would likely result in greater traffic congestion, increased demand for schools, healthcare services, and public transport, which may not be adequately addressed by the current plans. This, in turn, could reduce the quality of life for both new and existing residents.

Considering these concerns, I urge you to reconsider the proposed development and seek alternative sites that do not encroach on valuable greenbelt land. Preserving our natural environment and maintaining the balance between urban growth and green space is essential for the health and future of our community.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my views. I trust that you will act in the best interest of both the community and the environment.

Yes

ID sylw: 106245

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Claire Wainwright

159 - Land adjoining Birmingham Road, Hatton Green

Lack of Educational Infrastructure: The site does not offer any primary or secondary education
facilities, and only 12% of the site is within 800 metres of an existing primary school. This lack of
educational infrastructure will place additional pressure on already overburdened local schools,
potentially affecting the quality of education for current and future students.
Unique historic and rural setting: Development on this site will surround ancient woodland and a
location with has had a Church on it since the 12th Century, with modern houses. There is
potential for the construction of these dwellings to pose significant threat to the stability of the
woodland and the Church. Developing on this site will also remove public footpaths.
Health Implications: The proposed development could have significant health implications for the
local community. The lack of nearby healthcare facilities could strain existing services, making it
difficult for residents to access necessary medical care. Warwick hospital is already under
significant strain and on 8 January 2025 declared a ‘Critical Incident’ because of the level of
demand they were facing.

The health, wellbeing and education of our local community should be a priority.
The preservation of unique and historic locations, which demonstrate the much-loved character
of the English countryside should be of the utmost importance.
I respectfully request that planners and councillors refuse the allocation proposal for
the site(s) referenced, based on the reasons provided.

Other

ID sylw: 106251

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Mike Taylor

I am writing in response to the SWLP consultation and the fact that Weston site ID 569 remains in consideration for the local plan.
I believe that this considered development is inappropriate in a number of ways, not least because of the large scale which is way out of proportion with the sizes of Weston and Hunningham.
Geographically the proposal has serious flaws. HS2 between Weston and Cubbington is a grad barrier which has already disrupted this part of the countryside. Moreover, to the north the proposed development the B4453 Rugby road is already a busy link to the A445, and would become intolerably congested, and thus a major concern for local residents . The eastern boundary road through hunningham and over the ancient bridge near the red lion pub is far too narrow, it links to a dangerous cross roads at Hunningham Hill, and the narrow lane to Offchurch to the south passes through older residential buildings and again, HS2. In short the current infrastructure is patently unsuitable.
I am also familiar with the nature of the land: heavy clay soils descending towards the Leam. Although I have only lived here through 3 winters, the frequency of flooding in the lower (S) section of the proposal plus the waterlogged soils would present serious issues during and after construction.
As a valuable green space for walking and other recreation, this large scale proposal is seriously disproportionate.
In short, this is a far too big and potentially damaging proposal, fraught with likely difficulties during and after construction.

Other

ID sylw: 106253

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Stuart Wainwright

Green belt land exists for many good reasons including, the prevention of urban sprawl,safeguarding natural and farmed land from encroachment, and encouraging the recycling of derelict urban land as an alternative. The proposed development at Site 159 directly contradicts
these principles on all counts. Developing Site 159 would likely lead to habitat loss, negatively affecting local wildlife populations.
In addition to this, directly along one side of site 159 lies Hatton Church. A historic and culturally significant landmark, the church is an integral part of the village’s heritage. The visual impact and increased traffic would diminish the church’s peaceful surroundings, affecting both its aesthetic value and the experience of those who visit for worship and reflection.

No

ID sylw: 106270

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Patricia Taylor

Site Ref 148, 747, 552, + 062

I feel Shipston-on-Stour is not big enough and does not have the facilities for the proposed policies.

No

ID sylw: 106271

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Nick Sturgeon

Site 650

HELAA results for the land east of Spernall Lane and Appleby Close make no reference of the very varied wildlife in the field and small stream.

We frequently see deer, pheasants, partridge, owls, and many other birds.

There are two public footpaths which cross the field which are frequently used by local residents, dog walkers, horse riders and many others who appreciate the peace, quiet and beauty of the natural environment.

All this would be ruined and lost forever under these proposals.

Finally, I believe there is no real, local need for this development at all.

Yes

ID sylw: 106294

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Stephen Ingram

166 - Kingstanding Farm, Kites Nest Lane, Beausale, Warwick, CV35 7PB,
Turning a rural community surrounded by productive farmland into a small town, by developing
green belt is totally inappropriate. If this plan was approved, Hatton (Town) would be linked by
the construction of the proposed industrial/commercial estate to Warwick Town. Green belt is
supposed to prevent Urban Sprawl!