Other

ID sylw: 107595

Derbyniwyd: 28/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Offchurch Parish Council

KEY ISSUES - OVERVIEW of the three sites:
Site 67
Site 221
Site 66

Offchurch Village is designated a Conservation area and a limited infill Village. The sites under consideration will harm the nature of the Village, whilst failing to meet SWLP criteria.

It is a concern that all the sites are within the green belt. Whilst it is accepted that some green belt land may need to be developed, it is unclear why these sites close to a Conservation area and listed buildings are still under consideration for the SWLP. None of these sites will resolve the housing problem in South Warwickshire.

The proposed three sites would contribute 6.3 acres of land to be developed. Depending upon the housing types being built, this could add significantly to housing numbers and completely change the nature of the Village. The existing properties on Village Street, School Hill and Welsh Road within the confines of the Village comprises c 50 dwellings. If these proposed sites are permitted that could easily double the existing housing stock.

Offchurch has very limited facilities having a Church, Village Hall and one pub. There is no School or any shops. The nearest doctor surgeries are either in Lillington or Leamington Spa. There are limited bus services, so access to schooling, shops and surgeries requires residents to utilise private cars or expensive taxi services.

Assuming affordable housing is part of the plan, then schooling transport and medical services will be a problem. In addition, it is known that infrastructure in the Village e.g., sewage is struggling to cope. New housing would only exacerbate this problem.




a) Site 67 - Sydens Place Welsh Road – (5.3acres)

This piece of land being considered as part of the SWLP has several major issues.
1. The land is elevated and visible for some distance from the north, the development would significantly change the appearance of the conservation area.
2. 100% of the site is green belt and its development would be detrimental to the environs.
3. 100% of the site is within 500m of several listed buildings, including Offa House & St Gregory’s Church
4. The proposed site is outside of the defined Village envelope.
5. The SWLP survey indicates that this site is not subject to flooding. In 2024 alone the Welsh Road by the proposed site flooded 13 times making access to the site impossible for up to 30 days.
6. The Welsh Road is narrow and very busy. Access to the site would be hazardous for motorists and potential residents.
7. The Grade 2 listed single carriage stone bridge is narrow and has been subjected to significant damage caused by vehicles. Increased traffic flows will further increase this risk.
8. Pedestrians from the proposed site would experience difficulties walking into the Village, as there is no footpath to use and no space to provide a path.
9. Traffic volume on the Welsh Road is already heavy at peak travel times. Vehicles attempting to access the site from the north would struggle to cross oncoming traffic and then create bottlenecks.
10. An existing footpath, part of the Millennium Way runs across the land and would be impacted.
11. Development of the land will be detrimental to the wildlife habitats it provides. The proximity to the river makes this an even more important sit for wildlife. Nearby construction of HS2 has significantly damaged the nearby countryside and impacted on wildlife diversity.

Summary – The proposed site is entirely unsuited for housing and would significantly impact on the character and appearance of a Conservation Village.



b) Site 221 – East of School Hill – (1.7 acres)

The site to the east of School Hill has previously been the subject of a planning application. The planning application was opposed by the JPC and was also rejected by WDC. The comments made at the time (2020) regarding its refusal are still valid.

The key points raised by the JPC can be summarised as follows.
1. The land in question is part of green belt and is within a Conservation area. Offchurch is defined as a limited infill Village and the proposed land is outside the village envelope.
2. The land in question is an open space, having had no development in decades and which defines the open nature of the central part of the village. It would be a harmful development as the buildings would be highly visible.
3. Development here would significantly change the Village appearance and character.
4. In 1992 the land to the west of School hill had a planning application for three houses which was rejected. The development would have had a similar impact to the current proposal.
5. WDC commented that “gardens and open spaces that add to the historic appearance and interest of conservation areas should be protected from development”.
6. The refusal for S221 stated “the application site is located outside of the limited infill boundary of Offchurch and does not meet the criteria to be considered an appropriate development. The proposal is therefore considered to constitute an unsustainable form of development”.
7. The WDC also commented that “in the opinion of the local planning authority the proposed development would provide a continuous row of dwellings in a currently open field that is devoid of existing bulk form that would result in a more suburban appearance to this area that is at direct odds with and would detract from the rural character of the area through the loss of the open nature of the site.”
8. Highways considered the application and objected based on roadside access splays and standard refuse vehicle access.

Summary - This location has already been the subject of a planning application and rejected. Nothing has changed since the application was last rejected.

c) SITE 67 – VILLAGE STREET – (1.3 acres)

The site is at the eastern end of Village Street. A triangular site with the busy Long Itchington road to the south. As with Sydens Place the site is very visible when approaching the Village. It currently is surrounded by large trees and hedges and well screened.

The site has the following points to consider; -
1. Access to the site from the Long Itchington road would create road safety issues. The speed and volume of traffic would create danger to motorists entering and leaving the site.
2. Any building work is likely to require mature trees and hedges to be removed, negatively impacting the Village appearance.
3. Removal of trees and hedges will increase traffic noise and emissions for residents living to the east on Village Street.

No

ID sylw: 107615

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Bearley Parish Council

These proposals result from a desk/paper-based exercise and they lack understanding of local issues. The HELAA contains too many basic errors and incomplete data to be used in decision-making.

Transportation issues are worse than the plan suggests. The station is a ‘rural halt’. This is the only proposed site split by a major road, which would be dangerous for school children. The A3400 has serious bottlenecks and low, narrow bridges. Warwick Highways conclude traffic mitigation would be challenging and expensive. One rail line shown in the SWLP doesn’t exist. This is not a 'well connected' settlement.

The site is Green Belt. Development would coalesce Stratford-upon-Avon with its northern villages, conflicting with the purposes of the Green Belt and the SWLP principles. As 7 of the 12 sites are not Green Belt and have sufficient capacity to meet housing needs there are no 'exceptional circumstances' to justify release.

Biodiversity and the adjacency of Bearley Bushes SSSI are unaccounted for in the assessment. The Lepus 'Interim Sustainability Appraisal' rates this site as the worst choice for biodiversity. This site should be red and not green in the HELAA. The buffer zone of 25m in the HELAA is arbitrary and contrary to Natural England guidance.

The area has serious surface water flood risks evident from maps and moreso to locals who have to navigate flooding several times annually. Properties in the Grange Road Area (half the village) are at the bottom of a slight valley and at risk from increased run-off from development each side. The 2021 flood zone report shows part of the site as red but it is assessed green in the HELAA.

The site is ranked eighth out of twelve for sustainability but then without explanation the SWLP says it is a 'more suitable' site.

Other

ID sylw: 107636

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Elaine MErrygold

Sites 181 and 364 Land South of M40 Junction 15, Longbridge, Warwick
My initial concerns were over the sites REFID 181 and 364. Site 181 covers two fields, spanning the A429 south of the M40 J15 with Proposed Use of Commercial / Industrial / Employment. I had previously seen developer’s plan for the field to the left (west) of the A429 bounded by Watery Lane where I live which showed details of large warehouses and a few smaller units and a logistics park. This would be unacceptable for a number of reasons:
1) This would have put giant warehouses immediately opposite my and a few other houses which currently enjoy an open aspect and by their nature would involve noisy HGV movements 24 hours a day and would add unwanted lighting overnight.
2) This would have completely changed the rural nature of living in Sherbourne village with the warehouses dominating the landscape.
3) The site is in Flood Zone 3 and floods every winter (I can provide photographic evidence if required) and the additional runoff from warehouse roofs and all the associated tarmac would exacerbate this considerably.
4) I doubt that County Highways or National Highways would approve HGV access into the site from the A429 as this be with about 250 metres of the motorway junction and would inevitably cause problems with A429 traffic flow, which is bad enough already.
I was pleased to hear that while these two sites still show on the interactive map, they have been ‘Sifted Out’ and therefore I assume won’t be included in the SWLP – presumably for a combination of 3 and 4 above among other issues.
This left me being concerned about the two other Sherbourne sites showing on the map – 196 and 201.

Other

ID sylw: 107637

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Elaine MErrygold

Site 196 Land East of Vicarage Lane, Sherbourne
I understand that the SWLP includes a housing density of 30 Dwellings per Hectare (dph), so in principle this site could be promoted to take between 60 and 70 houses. Any such proposal would definitely not meet your Strategic Objective 1 of providing sustainable growth in an area.
Sherbourne has no infrastructure to ‘sustain’ any such development. The Severn Trent sewage systems can’t cope with current load (as detailed above) let alone the load from another 60+ dwellings. There are no pavements in most of the village and pedestrians have to walk in the road, competing for space with traffic, including overweight trucks and tractors that use is as a short cut, despite the weight limit signs. Over 60 houses at 2.5 people per house and probably two vehicles per house will add considerably to both the traffic and pedestrian volumes on the road. There is one church, but no school, pub, shops, etc so residents wishing to access any of these services will have to travel. The bus service is at best inadequate and impractical as it takes a very long time to reach a town from our village.
Sherbourne does not fit within your concept of a ‘Twenty Minute Neighbourhood’ which I understand to uphold the principle of being able to access services within a 10 minute walk, each way.

Other

ID sylw: 107638

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Elaine MErrygold

Site 201 Land between Vicarage Lane and Watery Lane, Sherbourne
This site is currently used for agriculture, including animal grazing and has again been put forward for Housing / Residential use. A recent planning application for change of use to leisure activities was rejected. This site is 2.03 hectares and assuming a dph of 30 could be promoted to take another 60 houses.
All the same arguments used above, for site 196, apply to this site: access onto single track Vicarage Lane or Watery Lane; no footpaths; no infrastructure; nothing within a 10 minute walk to meet your 20 minute neighbourhood.
This plot is outside the built envelop of Vicarage Lane / Watery Lane and would not meet the infill criteria described above.
I also feel it is worthwhile commenting on one other site which is not adjacent to Sherbourne but could affect Sherbourne were it to go ahead.

Other

ID sylw: 107639

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Elaine MErrygold

Red House Farm Development – North of Barford
At the JPC run meeting in Barford School on Wednesday 26 February this site was discussed.
While not appearing to be perfect this proposal does have some merits.
Anyone who uses the M40 regularly knows that the pair of half junctions at J13 and J14 just do not work, so a proposal to replace these with a better designed and built, full sized, junction should resolve some of the problems at these two junctions and relieve part of the congestion on J15. It would also help to reduce the traffic using our village and Barford as alternative routes if J15 is blocked (as frequently happens). The logic of then building Industrial / Commercial / Logistic premises around this new junction and providing employment has a certain inescapable logic. Indeed if the developers fund all or most of the cost of the motorway junction this would be a good way of updating the local infrastructure which is almost certainly not in either the current plans, or budget, of either County of National Highways.
Such use would be even more reason not to proceed with Sites 181 and 364 as it would have good access, not affect J15 or the A429, is not in Flood Zone 3 and would not dominate a small rural village.
However, while I can see the merits of this, to attach the proposed settlement of X1 to this would change the character of the area, bringing the south of Warwick and Leamington to the edge of Barford and possibly Wellesbourne. Over time this could lead to Barford being subsumed into a Warwick/Leamington conurbation as has happened with Whitnash and - in the near future - Bishops Tachbrook.

Yes

ID sylw: 107654

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Bill and Susie -

REFID: 16
The facility to respond is particularly confusing and it may be that we have used the incorrect part of the response form, but we wish to make the following comments on the REFID 16 area (the glossary does not cover this term so I am unsure just what it means).

The area REFID16 is an area of open countryside in an elevated position (currently being actively farmed) not connected with any village or settlement and the proposal to put a random group of houses in open countryside seems to have no basis in planning best practice. It would have a high (negative) visual impact. There are no public bus routes and it would necessitate using private cars for all the occupiers of these houses.
It has the same negative impact as the comments relating to SG20, it is not sustainable and the nearest village of Ardens Grafton is a non serviced village

No

ID sylw: 107660

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Roz Deacon

Re: Objection to Proposed Development at Arden Lodge, Station Lane, Lapworth (Ref ID 161)


I am writing to formally object to the proposed development at Arden Lodge, Station Lane, Lapworth, as part of the South Warwickshire Local Plan (SWLP).

1. The proposed development will severely impact on Local Character and Landscape and will threaten to significantly alter the character of Lapworth. The development would lead to the loss of vital greenbelt land, which serves as a buffer against urban sprawl and maintains the distinct identity of our village.
It is important to safeguard the local character and enhancing visual amenity are crucial, and this proposal fails to meet these objectives.

2. The current infrastructure in Lapworth is not equipped to handle the increased demand that 6,000 new homes would bring. The local roads, public transport, and essential services such as healthcare and education are already under pressure. The SWLP's Strategic Transport and Education Assessment highlights significant concerns regarding connectivity and the need for new schools, which have not been adequately addressed in this proposal.

3.The development poses a risk to local biodiversity and the natural environment. The loss of green spaces would disrupt local ecosystems and wildlife habitats.

4. The scale of the proposed development is disproportionate to the size of Lapworth, potentially overwhelming the existing community and eroding the village's sense of place. The SWLP emphasizes the importance of community support and need, which has not been demonstrated for this site.

In conclusion, I urge the council to reconsider the inclusion of this site in the SWLP and explore alternative options that align with sustainable development principles and the preservation of our community's character.

Thank you for considering my objections.

No

ID sylw: 107698

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Michael Holmes

I oppose development on site Ref ID 2, adjacent to existing properties and green belt land at Warwickshire Golf Club.

As a local resident I am concerned about negative impacts on our environment, community and quality of life.

The green belt is a buffer zone which protects our natural environment and provides a habitat for local wildlife. Development would result in loss of valuable green space, essential for biodiversity and recreation for residents. It would harm the local ecosystem and diminish the natural beauty that our community cherishes.

Toads, schools, and healthcare facilities are under significant strain. Adding more housing will increase pressure on these services. This could increase traffic congestion, wait times for medical care, and overcrowding in schools.

Construction of new housing adjacent to existing properties raises concerns about privacy, noise, air quality, and property devaluation. The character and tranquillity of our neighbourhood would be compromised, affecting the well-being of those who have chosen the location for its peaceful environment.

Consider alternative locations for housing development that don't encroaching on green belt. The site is on a significant incline. Water run-off post-development during heavy rain could lead to localised flooding to existing properties and roads at lower levels.

Other

ID sylw: 107699

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Terry Welch

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: 107709

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Tim Newcombe

The following comments are with regard to proposed housing sites in Pillerton Priors and the effects these will have upon Pillerton Hersey. The following is from a Pillerton Hersey perspective.

The lack of infrastructure to deal with extra housing is concerning. I am very concerned for the future of the village and especially for the inhabitants within the flood zone. Most of our village is designated as Flood Zone 3. There are 3 housing plots proposed in this plan which could affect us. They are in Pillerton Priors on the hillside above us in Pillerton Hersey. At some point houses within this flood area will be uninsurable if more development continues. Unfortunately, all planning applications in Pillerton Priors are considered separately to Pillerton Hersey. There are two parish councils. Even though we are one mile apart it never seems to be a consideration to take into account the knock-on effect of further housebuilding in Pillerton Priors on the low-lying village of Pillerton Hersey, which sits at the bottom of a very large catchment area.
3 infrastructure problems
1. Sewerage
2. Our antiquated pumping station in Pillerton Hersey
3. Water shortages in Summer
Flooding
Bearing in mind that Pillerton Hersey is at the lowest point in a very large water catchment area from beyond Butlers Marston to beyond the new housing at Pillerton Priors (Findon’s Fields) and each year is at risk of flooding from flash flooding and run off. It is predicted, due to Climate Change, that rainfall will be more frequent and heavier in years to come. In times of flash flooding water also enters the sewage system.
Sewerage
Our pumping station, built in the 1970’s, receives contents from both Hersey and Priors and struggles to cope. It is then pumped uphill to Butlers Marston. At the receiving end the Sewage Works at Butlers Marston is also overburdened. In a Severn Trent survey in 2019 there was only enough capacity to service 23 more households. This applies to all three areas – Butlers Marston, Pillerton Hersey and Pillerton Priors. As far as I know nothing has changed.
Drought
Every summer in recent years there have been water shortages and reduced pressure in both Hersey and Priors. Water has been brought in repeatedly by tankers to replenish the Ettington Reservoir.
Further housing projects within this catchment area make no sense at all and there appears to be no joined up thinking about the effects of such plans.
In my opinion further development within our water catchment area, dictated simply by the topography of the surrounding hillsides, should be halted. We need more joined up thinking in this process. Although these proposed housebuilding sites are outside of our parish they will have a direct effect upon it.
Please reconsider these proposals. They just do not make sense.
I hope that a thorough assessment can be made to investigate all of the above before accepting the current proposals within the Pillerton Priors area.

Other

ID sylw: 107720

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Alex Carbutt Todd

REFID-612
By the process of your own initial analysis procedure - HELAA Part A – site 612 should be sifted out of the process. As a landowner within the proposed site, we do not plan to sell and have not been consulted on our willingness to do so, which should result in a ‘Red’ score under the ownership assessment criteria. “Using the RAG approach, any site scoring one “Red” or more are considered unsuitable for development and is sifted out.”
100% of 612 is greenfield.
Both 612 and 716 have very poor overall HELAA_B scores. Especially 716, having the 37th highest score out of 672 proposed sites.
I would like it to be noted that our land has been promoted for adoption without our consent by Terrano Land & Development, and therefore we are not represented by Terrano, nor can we be treated as a single party along with the other parcels under their promotion, further reducing the cohesion of 612, SG11, and X2.


Working in the real estate industry, I appreciate the requirement for additional housing across the country. However, new development must be of good quality and the selection of new sites be held to high and consistent standards in order for future communities to be sustainable. There has already been a tremendous amount of new poor-quality development along the Harbury Lane, Europa Way, and Gallows Hill etc. which has not been supported by appropriate amenity or infrastructure upgrades, has merged with existing settlements, and has therefore resulted in a considerable negative impact on existing infrastructure and the character of the area. The volume of vehicle traffic in the Leamington and Warwick area is already unsustainable, especially during peak hours. I do not feel therefore that SG11 and X2 represent appropriate locations for residential or mixed-use development considering the character of the locale and the points raised above, especially given it is clear that X2 will not be sustainable and self-supporting, all of which are legitimate arguments based on the SWLP self-assessment criteria.

Other

ID sylw: 107723

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Alex Carbutt Todd

REFID-716
Both 612 and 716 have very poor overall HELAA_B scores. Especially 716, having the 37th highest score out of 672 proposed sites.
SG11 is sprawling and crosses local authority boundaries (as does X2). There is limited access with no A-road to the western section. Both 716 and 612 have limited access, mainly only currently via Harbury Lane. It is difficult not to foresee development of this area causing additional congestion issues around Heathcote and Whitnash, along Harbury Lane and the Fosse Way.
would like it to be noted that our land has been promoted for adoption without our consent by Terrano Land & Development, and therefore we are not represented by Terrano, nor can we be treated as a single party along with the other parcels under their promotion, further reducing the cohesion of 612, SG11, and X2.

Other

ID sylw: 107727

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Jonathan Wallis

Asiant : Framptons

REFID-184
With regards the Viability and Deliverability site is scored as ‘Green’, as set out above due the appeal refusal on the site, it submitted that the site should be scored ‘Red’ as this demonstrates that the site is not deliverable.
With regards to Landscape Sensitivity, we consider that the score of this should be higher (i.e. scored more negatively),
With regards to the HELAA scores on Listed Building and Conservation Area again it is considered that the site should be scored more negatively
With regards to the HELAA scores in relation to the sustainability credentials of the site (Locational Connectivity, Accessibility to Local Services and Transport Assessment) again it is considered that the site is scored too positively as the site is not in a sustainable location,
In summary it is considered that the has been scored too positively and site should not remain in consideration for the SWLP.

Yes

ID sylw: 107728

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Lucinda Wallis

Asiant : Framptons

REFID- 184
With regards the Viability and Deliverability site is scored as ‘Green’, as set out above due the appeal refusal on the site, it submitted that the site should be scored ‘Red’ as this demonstrates that the site is not deliverable.
With regards to Landscape Sensitivity, we consider that the score of this should be higher (i.e. scored more negatively),
With regards to the HELAA scores on Listed Building and Conservation Area again it is considered that the site should be scored more negatively
With regards to the HELAA scores in relation to the sustainability credentials of the site (Locational Connectivity, Accessibility to Local Services and Transport Assessment) again it is considered that the site is scored too positively as the site is not in a sustainable location,
In summary it is considered that the has been scored too positively and site should not remain in consideration for the SWLP.

Yes

ID sylw: 107729

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Henry Wallis

Asiant : Framptons

REFID-184
With regards the Viability and Deliverability site is scored as ‘Green’, as set out above due the appeal refusal on the site, it submitted that the site should be scored ‘Red’ as this demonstrates that the site is not deliverable.
With regards to Landscape Sensitivity, we consider that the score of this should be higher (i.e. scored more negatively),
With regards to the HELAA scores on Listed Building and Conservation Area again it is considered that the site should be scored more negatively
With regards to the HELAA scores in relation to the sustainability credentials of the site (Locational Connectivity, Accessibility to Local Services and Transport Assessment) again it is considered that the site is scored too positively as the site is not in a sustainable location,
In summary it is considered that the has been scored too positively and site should not remain in consideration for the SWLP.

Yes

ID sylw: 107730

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Freddy Wallis

Asiant : Framptons

REFID-184
With regards the Viability and Deliverability site is scored as ‘Green’, as set out above due the appeal refusal on the site, it submitted that the site should be scored ‘Red’ as this demonstrates that the site is not deliverable.
With regards to Landscape Sensitivity, we consider that the score of this should be higher (i.e. scored more negatively),
With regards to the HELAA scores on Listed Building and Conservation Area again it is considered that the site should be scored more negatively
With regards to the HELAA scores in relation to the sustainability credentials of the site (Locational Connectivity, Accessibility to Local Services and Transport Assessment) again it is considered that the site is scored too positively as the site is not in a sustainable location,
In summary it is considered that the has been scored too positively and site should not remain in consideration for the SWLP.

Yes

ID sylw: 107731

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Simon Wilson

am writing to formally object to the proposed development of new homes in Wellesbourne, Warwick, as detailed in planning application reference 623 Lowes Lane/Walton Road, Wellesbourne (Well.07B). As a concerned resident of Wellesbourne and a member of the local community, I believe that this development will have significant adverse effects on the environment, infrastructure, and quality of life for existing residents. I would like to outline the key reasons for my opposition to this project:
1. Impact on Local Infrastructure
2. Environmental concerns
3. Overdevelopment and Loss of Village Character
4. Lack of consultation with the community
5. Inadequate access to affordable housing
6. Flooding concerns and Flood Zone 3
Given these concerns, I urge Warwick District Council to reject the planning application for the proposed housing development in Wellesbourne

Other

ID sylw: 107768

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Bellway Strategic Land

Asiant : Savills

Long Itchington is a sustainable settlement suitable for accommodating housing growth within the plan period. We consider that additional areas / sites outside of Strategic Growth Locations should be allocated for development that can come forward in the short to medium term.
Across all sites assessed in Part B, the median score was 45. We note a lower score is considered better and therefore the site ID 334 score reflects the most positive assessment of the three sites. In comparison to sites assessed in and around Long Itchington, Site 334 (north) is the joint lowest scoring parcel which we consider reflects that it is one of the most suitable locations for housing growth adjacent to Long Itchington.
In the ‘Settlement Design Analysis’ (January 2023), Site IDs 334 and 335 are category ‘B’ out of 9 categories and Site ID 336 is category C, ‘A’ being the best connectivity to a settlement. Therefore, the HELAA recognises the sites, particularly 224 and 335, are in a sustainable location.
The only potential concern raised in the HELAA relates to potential heritage impact. The Sites are within an area assessed as ‘Red’ in the HELAA and Heritage and Settlement Sensitivity Assessment (2022). CSA Heritage has produced a Heritage Note (February 2025) which is submitted with this response. CSA consider that the assessment is not consistent with the heritage sensitivity of the Site due to the incorrect assessment of the Site’s relationship with the Long Itchington Conservation Area. The ‘Red’ score does not take into account the presence of woodland between the Sites and the Conservation Area which differentiates it from land assessed further west. We therefore consider that the assessment of the Site, and subsequent score applied in the HELAA, should be amended.

No

ID sylw: 107773

Derbyniwyd: 21/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Celia White

Ref 514 - Land at Station Lane Kingswood

Area has no major road infrastructure and also infringes upon Baddesley Clinton ,
Major Charity events are held here and future development will remove all footpaths and
Bridleways from proposed site.
Local roads and lanes would be completely overwhelmed.
Also with all these developments we never here of and Doctors Surgeries and Dentists they just plonk a load of housing in and let everyone get on with it.

Yes

ID sylw: 107795

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Bellway Homes

Asiant : Savills

Site ID 334, 335, 336
Bellway’s land adjacent to Long Itchington (Site ID 334, 335 and 336) were all carried forward to be assessed in Part B of the HELAA.
Long Itchington is a sustainable settlement suitable for accommodating housing growth within the plan period. We consider that additional areas / sites outside of Strategic Growth Locations should be allocated for development that can come forward in the short to medium term.
In the submitted Vision Document, Bellway has set out different promotion options for Site ID 334, 335 and 336 depending on the scale of growth which is directed to Long Itchington. The sites are directly adjacent to Southam Road which connects the site via public transport to Leamington Spa, Rugby and Daventry. We consider that Long Itchington should be identified for growth given its location on a key transport route, the range of shops, services and facilities provided and that it is one of the few sustainable settlements that is not located within the Green Belt, AONB or Special Landscape Area. • Option 1 - Northern site only - Circa 45 – 55 dwellings (30 – 35dph).
• Option 2 – Northern and Central sites – Circa 80 – 100 dwellings (30 – 35dph)
• Option 3 – Northern, Central and Southern site 100+ dwellings as well as potential community uses and / or school if required.
The HELAA assesses the sites as follows:
• Site ID 334 Land to West of Southam Road, Long Itchington (North) scored 45.5 overall (1.71ha).
• Site ID 335 Land to West of Southam Road, Long Itchington (Central) scored 54.9 overall (2.28ha).
• Site ID 336 Land to West of Southam Road, Long Itchington (South) scored 62.9 overall (10.98ha).
Across all sites assessed in Part B, the median score was 45. We note a lower score is considered better and therefore the site ID 334 score reflects the most positive assessment of the three sites. In comparison to sites assessed in and around Long Itchington, Site 334 (north) is the joint lowest scoring parcel which we consider reflects that it is one of the most suitable locations for housing growth adjacent to Long Itchington.
In the ‘Settlement Design Analysis’ (January 2023), Site IDs 334 and 335 are category ‘B’ out of 9 categories and Site ID 336 is category C, ‘A’ being the best connectivity to a settlement. Therefore, the HELAA recognises the sites, particularly 224 and 335, are in a sustainable location.
The only potential concern raised in the HELAA relates to potential heritage impact. The Sites are within an area assessed as ‘Red’ in the HELAA and Heritage and Settlement Sensitivity Assessment (2022). CSA Heritage has produced a Heritage Note (February 2025) which is submitted with this response. CSA consider that the assessment is not consistent with the heritage sensitivity of the Site due to the incorrect assessment of the Site’s relationship with the Long Itchington Conservation Area. The ‘Red’ score does not take into account the presence of woodland between the Sites and the Conservation Area which differentiates it from land assessed further west. We therefore consider that the assessment of the Site, and subsequent score applied in the HELAA, should be amended.

Other

ID sylw: 107801

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Bellway Homes

Asiant : Savills

Bellway’s site (Site ID 466/471) is located within the proposed SGL SG19. As stated in our separate responses, Bellway strongly support the proposed allocation of their land. Reference to two site ID’s is included as Bellway’s land has been assessed as the eastern half of site ID 471 (c.4ha) (Land North of Loxley Road, Stratford upon Avon) and the eastern part of a wider parcel, site ID 466 (c.16.73ha) (Land at Knights Lane, Loxley Road and Pimlico Lane, Stratford upon Avon).
Site ID 466 scored 34.40 overall and Site ID 471 scored 33.30 overall. Across all sites assessed in Part B, the median score was 45. We note a lower score is considered better and therefore Site ID 466/471 score reflects a very positive assessment and is better performing than the majority of sites assessed in the HELAA.
In the ‘Settlement Design Analysis’ (January 2023), Site ID 466 has also been given a ‘connectivity grade’ of ‘B’ which is good connectivity. The SWLP evidence base therefore recognise that the Site ID 466/471 is in a sustainable and accessible location.
Site ID 466/471 is located on the edge of the largest and most sustainable settlement in the District which offers a wide range of services and facilities and is served by public transport. The Site is also not located within the Green Belt or restricted in terms of any landscape or ecological designations. Site ID 466/471 also offers the opportunity for housing delivery in the short term as it is in single ownership and being promoted by a housebuilder.
In light of the above, Site ID 466/471 should remain as a proposed residential allocation within the SWLP.

Yes

ID sylw: 107802

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Katie and Carl Jackson

Re: Opposition to Proposed Development of 52 dwellings behind the houses on Malthouse Lane in
between the Maltings and Car park (Site 600).
I am writing to formally oppose the proposed development of 52 new dwellings behind the houses on
Malthouse Lane in between the Maltings and Car park. As a resident of the area, I have significant
concerns about the negative impact this development will have on both the environment and the
community. I believe that these concerns need to be seriously considered before any planning
permission is granted.
Environmental Impact on Nearby Lakes
The development would be situated near Terry’s Pool of Earlswood Lakes, an area of significant natural
beauty. These lakes are not only an important visual asset for the area but also support local wildlife and
contribute to the overall quality of the environment. The construction and increased human activity in the
area would drastically alter the landscape, causing irreversible damage to this tranquil space and
potentially leading to long-term environmental degradation. The aesthetic and ecological damage to this
area would be unacceptable, and I strongly urge the council to reconsider the placement of such a largescale
development.
Flooding and Drainage Issues
Our area already faces considerable flooding during heavy rainfall, with many properties, including mine,
experiencing issues such as water pooling on drives and gardens. Our area already faces considerable
flooding during heavy rainfall, with many properties including mine, facing issues such as water pooling
on driveways and gardens. Our driveway and those of our neighbours frequently resemble swimming
pools, as the existing drainage system is physically incapable of managing the volume of water.
Consequently, we've had to consider installing flood prevention systems on our property.
The current drainage system is inadequate, and there are serious concerns that adding additional homes
will worsen these problems, putting additional strain on already compromised infrastructure. The impact
of runo􀆯 from 52 new properties will lead to even more frequent flooding, potentially a􀆯ecting homes and
infrastructure in the vicinity.
Strain on Local Infrastructure
The local roads are narrow and already struggle to accommodate the current level of tra􀆯ic. The
development of 52 houses would add substantial pressure to the infrastructure, leading to increased
tra􀆯ic congestion, safety concerns, and further deterioration of the already overstretched roads. The
causeway over Earlswood Lakes has seen many accidents over the last few months resulting in repairs.
The surrounding area cannot support this level of growth without substantial and costly upgrades to
roads, drainage, and other public services. Without significant improvements, this development would
severely impact the quality of life for current residents.
Loss of Vegetation and Habitat
The land designated for development currently contains valuable vegetation and wildlife habitats.
Removing these areas would lead to a loss of biodiversity and disrupt local ecosystems. It is essential
that we protect these green spaces, as they play a critical role in maintaining the environmental balance
of the area. The proposed development would contribute to habitat loss and pose a direct threat to the
wildlife that relies on these spaces.
Pollution Concerns for Nearby Lakes
With the development of 52 houses, the increased human activity and potential runo􀆯 could result in
significant pollution of the nearby lakes. The introduction of waste, chemicals, and other contaminants
could have long-term detrimental e􀆯ects on the water quality, a􀆯ecting not just the lakes but the
surrounding flora and fauna as well.
In conclusion, I strongly oppose this development based on the concerns outlined above. The
environmental, infrastructure, and social costs of this project far outweigh any potential benefits, and I
respectfully urge the council to reconsider the approval of this proposal. Earlswood is a small village
community, and the increased developments will jeopardise its unique character and charm.
Thank you for your time in considering my objections. I would appreciate of being kept informed of any
upcoming public hearings or meetings related to the planning process.

Yes

ID sylw: 107805

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Rachel Cross

Site 569 is totally unsuitable for development in terms of flooding, access and HS2, and hope you will agree therefore that it should be completely removed from your consideration.

The flood risk is not limited to a boundary of the site as considerable areas beyond this have flooded twice this year already with some of the land being almost permanently boggy making the whole site unsuitable for development.

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.

HS2 has already ruined the landscape of this area and in planning terms, forms a hard landscape feature and permanent solid barrier to the north of Leamington. It is important that development in the greenbelt does not extend over this barrier as it will result in rapid erosion of the greenbelt between Leamington and Coventry, which is already heavily under pressure.

Since this site has already been consulted on, leading to this model being removed from the plan, site 569 should not "remain in consideration of the SWLP".

Yes

ID sylw: 107836

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land

Asiant : Turley

Site 573
Part B of the HELAA identifies and assesses the following constraints as “amber”
: • Site 573:
‒ Green Belt
‒ Greenfield
‒ Viability and deliverability
‒ Minerals Safeguarding
‒ Surface water (although only on a small proportion of the site)
‒ Listed buildings (only part of the site in close proximity) ‒ Local Wildlife Site (only part of the site in close proximity)
the sites (reference HMG1 and HMG2) are considered to make an overall “weak” contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt.
Having regard to the minerals safeguarding of the site, it is noted that other sites identified for potential allocation are also in safeguarding areas.
The viability and deliverability of site 573 is also noted as an amber constraint, it is unclear what the justification is for this. However, the deliverability of the site is not considered to be a constraint, in planning terms, the site is deliverable for new homes subject to its removal from the Green Belt.
On the basis set out above, the site promoted by Taylor Wimpey is considered to represent a deliverable site opportunity which could come forward early in the plan period.

Yes

ID sylw: 107894

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land

Asiant : Turley

Site 154
The site has the capacity to deliver circa 300 new homes based on a density of 35 dwellings per hectare on approximately 8.9 hectare developable area. The site will comprise a mix of different types, tenures and sizes including market and affordable homes. This approach will create a balanced and sustainable neighbourhood that meets the identified needs of the south Warwickshire area.
The non-developable area will comprise access routes, a hierarchy of streets to facilitate safe pedestrian and cycling movement and be knitted together by a central parkland (circa 1.7ha) and surrounding green infrastructure, woodland and open space (circa 3.97ha).
1.9 The connectivity potential of the site to the centre of Hockley Heath, the wider area of south Warwickshire and Solihull and the proximity to the HS2 Interchange Station, represents an opportunity to provide a highly accessible neighbourhood. Such connectivity will allow future residents to travel sustainably to a variety of employment and recreational opportunities.
The site constraints and opportunities and an illustrative development framework is provided at Appendix 1 (see attachment) of this Statement.

Yes

ID sylw: 107897

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: TERRA

Asiant : Lichfields (Birmingham)

Suitable, Available and Achievable
2.39 The Site was assessed in the SWA’s ‘Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment
(2024)’ [HELAA] under Site Reference: 759. The Site was assessed through the Part A and
Part B HELAA assessments and was recommended to remain in consideration for the
SWLP – a conclusion that Terra welcomes and supports. The site scored 59.13 through the
HELAA Part B assessment, albeit the site was assessed as suitable for employment use.
2.40 The SWAs will be aware of the importance of demonstrating the deliverability of all sites
that are proposed for allocation when SWLP is examined for soundness. If allocated, it is
considered the Site could be developed in the short-medium term for residential use. In this
regard, Annex 2 of the NPPF states that to be considered deliverable, “sites for housing
should be available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable
with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on the site within five years.”
2.41 In this context, Terra wishes to reaffirm the Site’s status as being ‘suitable, available and
achievable’ and that Terra ’ s Vision for the Site is predicated upon evidence which ensures
that there are no environmental or technical constraints to the development of the Site.
Importantly, Terra have the capability and expertise to deliver this Vision for the Site and is
committed to working constructively with the SWAs and local stakeholders through the
plan-making process.
Delivery Timescales
2.42 As noted above, it is envisaged that the Site could be developed in the short/ medium term
with development taking place within the early years following plan adoption, with the
remaining development phases over the period to 2050 across three overall phases:
• Phase 1 could provide approximately 550 homes and a community facility, with primary
vehicle access from Gaydon Road and new pedestrian and cycle access points. This
phase would also include a linear park, ancillary public open spaces, supporting
infrastructure, and SuDS, along with delivery of land for a 3FE primary school.
• Phase 2 could add an additional 500 homes, introducing a second vehicle access from
Gaydon Road. It would also feature expanded public open spaces, further supporting
infrastructure, SuDS.
• Phase 3 would deliver a further c500 dwellings, including a buffer to Bishops
Itchington, additional open space, supporting infrastructure and SUDS.
2.43 It is envisaged that subject to the Site being allocated in a future Regulation 19 SWLP, Terra
would seek to submit a planning application in advance of the Examination in Public to
assist the SWAs in demonstrating the deliverability of the allocation to Inspectors.
2.44 Assuming the SWLP is adopted in line with the SWA’s timetable (i.e. December 2027), and
the application is approved shortly thereafter, delivery on Phase 1 could begin within 3
years, meaning that the development could form part of the SWLP’s five-year housing land
supply.
2.45 In respect of the delivery trajectory, Terra envisages the Site could be delivered broadly in
line with the below trajectory and deliver well within the SWLP plan period: [table available in attachment]

Approach to achieving net zero
2.46 Terra ’s Vision for the Site ensures that the development could deliver on the SWLP’s Vision
and Strategic Policy Objectives in relation to delivering sustainable growth and combating
climate change. Further information on how Terra proposes to achieve this is set out in
detail in the supporting Vision Document (Appendix 1).
2.47 However, in short, the Site could deliver a suite of ecological and green infrastructure
improvements throughout the proposed development, ensuring a 10% Biodiversity Net
Gain [BNG] alongside blue-infrastructure enhancements and a Linear Park and landscape
buffer to Bishops Itchington in the north.
2.48 When coupled with a fabric-first approach to the build specification that will ensure that
new homes will reduce heat waste and incorporate low-carbon energy generation
technologies, and electric vehicle charging points, the Site is well placed to assist the SWAs
in achieving Net Zero.
Mitigation of issues identified through the SA
2.49 Based on the SA conclusions, SG14 broadly ranks toward the lower end of the twenty-four
SGLs in terms of best and worst-performing SGLs against the Sustainability Appraisal [SA]
objectives, set out in the ‘Interim Sustainability Appraisal of the South Warwickshire Local
Plan Regulation 18: Preferred Options Stage’.
2.50 However, it is considered that this fails to take into account the impact of mitigation
through the delivery of the scheme to include new community and social infrastructure as
identified within the Vision Document at Appendix 1. This is made clear in the SA which
advises that: “Mitigation has not been considered when ranking the SGLs, given the
options requiring less intervention are likely to be more sustainable choices.” However,
2.51 Terra have set out below how the Site could mitigate against any of the impacts identified
within the SA: [table visible in attatchment]

It should be noted that further technical work can be provided to the SWAs to demonstrate
that the Site could mitigate any negative impacts arising from development and which will
build upon the position set out in the Vision Document at Appendix 1.

Yes

ID sylw: 107900

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Taylor Wimpey Strategic Land

Asiant : Turley

Part A determines that the site is not subject to “significant constraints to development, for which mitigation would not be possible or would be very difficult to achieve” and as such, is progressed for further assessment through Part B of the HELAA.
Part B of the HELAA identifies and assesses the following constraints as “amber”
‒ Green Belt
‒ Greenfield
-Minerals Safeguarding
-Surface water (although only on a small proportion of the site)
‒ Listed buildings (only part of the site in close proximity)
the site promoted by Taylor Wimpey is considered to represent a deliverable site opportunity which could come forward early in the plan period.
Furthermore, it is not expected that the site would require any significant infrastructure to enable development given the overall scale of the site opportunity.
In addition to the above, the land referred to as land “Adjacent to Hockley Heath Recreation Ground/ Access also via Aylesbury Road/Old Warwick Road” (HELAA site reference: 679) extending to the south of the site, and forming part of the SG24 Strategic Growth Location, represents a potential opportunity to further extend the site. Combined, the land to the north (HELAA Ref: 154) and the southern parcel (HELAA Ref: 679) has the potential to provide 600 - 700 dwellings overall.

Other

ID sylw: 107913

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Matthew White

Refid 562 & Refid 16 are fields that will form coalescence between Bidford and Ardens Grafton.

Ardens Grafton is a non-service village.

Both proposals are situated in elevated fields in open countryside. They lie within an area of high visual impact.

All of the fields in these parcels of land are in current Grade 1 & Grade 2 agricultural use.

Surface flooding is a big issue on George Elm Lane and Grafton Lane which run either side of these fields.

Yes

ID sylw: 107919

Derbyniwyd: 13/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Catesby Estates Ltd

Asiant : Stantec

Catesby Estates strongly support Draft Strategic Growth Location SG01 (South of Coventry Group) as described above.
Specifically in respect of Catesby Estates’ interest at Land at Gibbet Hill (HELAA Ref: 122), the findings of the HELAA are largely supported (included at Appendix 4).
Detailed comments are provided in relation to:
- Green Belt - GB scores do not total 100%, Initial Landscape and Visual Appraisal findings mean that the HELAA overstates the site's contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt
- Grey belt - the site is considered to have limited or no contribution to purposes a), b) and d) based on the LVIA and does not have any 'footnote 7' designations and so meets the definition of 'grey belt'.
- Flood zones - these are peripheral to the site and so should be scored as zero
-Ancient woodland - Tocil Wood is outside of the site and so should score as zero.