No

ID sylw: 105796

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Sarah Wood

The area is in the Green Belt and the loss of greenbelt will lead to inevitable results as food sources will be lost forcing us to import food at higher cost. Other concerns include inadequate infrastructure, traffic congestion, overwhelmed GP surgeries, hospital and dentists and put pressure on public transport. There will be enormous loss of wildlife and will lead to reduction in property values and will lead to loss of identity of Hatton.

No

ID sylw: 105801

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Malcolm Cook

I have no objection to new houses being built as the UK population increases.
However, whilst the Hatton New Town proposal may appear exciting to some, I consider a very important detail is being missed.
Warwick Hospital and all of the staff are first class, but it is land locked, bursting at the seams with very limited parking.
With the new builds at Hatton Park and several already underway in Kenilworth plus New Town , perhaps the District Council should be pressuring the government
with regard to a new hospital
I have learned from a friend today, who lives in Wilmcote near Stratford upon Avon, that they have been informed of thousands of more houses are coming to surround them, Bearley and elsewhere nearby. All these places being part of the Warwick Hospital catchment.
So, the Warwick DC need to make serious overtures in the direction of the government, to obtain funding for environment improvements, together with what will
quickly become our hospital shortcomings.

No

ID sylw: 105818

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Tom Willans

The proposal would result in loss of high quality Green Belt leading to urban sprawl. The Plan has failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify departure from greenbelt designation. There is loss of amenities, green corridors and bridleways. There is a lack of infrastructure including transport, medical and dental facilities, schools, vets and shops. There needs to significant investment to improve the provision of these facilities. Hatton's station's current facilities are not capable of serving the proposed growth in the area. The proposed development would have detrimental impact on the area's heritage and will significantly impact the local wildlife and its habitats.

No

ID sylw: 105828

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Amelia Chubb

I am writing to put forward my objections to the proposed development site of B1 and surrounding areas C1, SG07 & SG08.

We have lived in Hatton for the last 3 years and have appreciated having a small community, green countryside and peace and quiet that living near Greenbelt brings with it. We fell pregnant with our daughter just before the works started at Union View (Hatton Park) in February 2023 and it didn't take long to realise the uptake in traffic and delays. My route to the hospital, along the Birmingham Road, had gone from being about 7 minutes to over 25+ minutes. From living close to the Union View development of 150 homes, we have already noticed the added pressure on the roads and local infrastructure and it was a nightmare to get around during those works, which lasted over a year. I understand that they have currently only sold 60% of the houses on Union View and are struggling to sell the remaining 40%. This leads me to question, why if they cannot sell houses that have just been built to support housing demands, should there even be consideration for more houses in this area.

Sites 159 and 160, including all of the sites located in site B1 would have a huge detrimental impact to the people living in this community and it would overwhelm the current infrastructure and ruin the natural environment. The road that sits in between sites 159 and 160 is The Green and is a small road that during school drop offs and pick ups it is complete chaos. Cars have to mount verges and lawns to even allow cars passing one another. This road would never cope with the amount of traffic the proposed development would bring. The safety of the children at the school would be at risk if this road was to become a busier thoroughfare and would require a lot of work to protect the families at busy times. If there were to be another estimated 10,000 cars on the road, then the whole community would be gridlocked.

The roads on either side of our community are busy fast roads that already build up with traffic quite frequently, especially if there are ever temporary traffic lights. All side roads coming off of these roads are all tiny country lanes (such as Dark Lane) that again, cannot currently sustain the overflow of cars that come through the area. Cars have to frequently pull to the side to allow another oncoming car through and people do drive incredibly fast along these narrow lanes. These lanes are also frequently flooded when we have experienced a heavy downpour, which is also a regular occurance. I understand that the developers would endeavour to create the required infrastructure to support the influx of cars and people, however, we all know this infrastructure would be the last thing to be put in place, if ever, and all that will end up happening is 18,000 more people on top of our community will not have the services they need or are able to get around.

I drive to Banbury for work and the hardest part of my journey is getting onto the M40 for the amount of traffic that I come across via the Birmingham Road, The Stanks Roundabout, the A46 and any roads in and around Warwick. I can often be stuck in traffic for 30 minutes to get onto the M40 which used to take around 6 minutes. The infrastructure that would be required to allow any further cars on the road would need to be significant and new bridges would need to be built over the canal to support this. This would mean many years of roadworks and people stuck in heavy traffic. Union View showed us how bad it was with one year of traffic works, this proposed development would likely be a minimum of 10 years of roadworks which will make anyone using the roads lives extremely hard.

The local railways are also inadequate to support a development of this nature. The services at Hatton are infrequent and there is extremely poor access to the station itself. The narrow road leading to Hatton Station is not suitable for cyclists, buses or pedestrians and cannot be widened, nor can the small car park be expanded. It does not run or cannot run the required services it would need to support this proposal. A huge amount of investment would be needed to improve the station's facilities to be able to cope with the proposed numbers. I drive this road every morning to drop my child at nursery and see how difficult it would be for this station to be any busier than it is.

Our area was surveyed three years ago to see if any more housing needed to be built to support the area. The outcome of this was that a provision of just 4 more houses were required. I find it extremely hard to fathom that you can go from completing a survey such as this to putting forward over 8,000 homes in the area. The public services that currently supply the area with drainage, water, electricity and gas are not adequate to sustain such an influx of people. I note there is no intention to provide a new hospital for the area and would mean people are relying on Warwick Hospital which just would not be able to support the numbers we are facing. This is extremely dangerous and a pressure on an already busy hospital. Overall, I do not trust the developers to put in the level of infrastructure required to sustain a 'new town'. The houses always go up first and then the residents, old and new are expected to put up with inadequate services because they are being put under unsustainable pressures due to the increase in numbers. This will happen with local doctors, schools, hospitals, roads, travel, shops and integrated services such as broadband, gas, water supply and electricity.

The fact that the Government is willing to wipe out Greenbelt is absolutely infuriating. Having seen the statistics from the Community Planning Alliance and the Homes For Everyone Campaign; we do not need to touch Greenbelt to solve the current housing crisis. It only takes wandering into local towns like Leamington, Stratford and Coventry to see empty shops and buildings that could be refurbished and made into safe housing for people. I would say this is the case for Birmingham City as well. This would also mean that the travel systems such as buses and trains are already in place and would not need to be built in areas such as Hatton that would not be able to currently support this influx of people.

We have over 1 million promised homes, already signed off by the Government that have not been built yet. Again, build these and use Brownfield sites to build on if we do need to build more. They have completely overlooked the obvious solutions and chosen to take the lazy option of obliterating our green space and putting money into developers pockets. These houses also never end up being affordable for the people who need them most and it solves nothing in the long term. I cannot believe that sites 159 and 160 have been put forward as preferred sites due to the nature of being in and around protected woods, Grade II listed houses, a small primary school and a historical church. These were not flagged on your rating system and we deem the rating as actually far less suitable than what it was rated as. This means we should not have ever been considered as a preferred site.

We are supposed to be known for our green land and areas of natural beauty. What the Government is proposing to do would destroy for good the sadly rare green spaces we now have as a country and any reason worth visiting Britain. Where will anyone take their children to see nature at its best? It will destroy the natural habitats of so many wildlife that we need to exist in our world. We are home to many bats, birds, otters, hedgehogs, deer and hundreds of other precious species. This would all be gone permanently. It would also affect not only the green fields, but the canal that we have locally. This is an already busy public area, where many animals and birds reside, and I know that the development would put all of this in jeopardy and overrun the canal with people.

We used to be a country that led the way against climate change. I felt proud of that; now it seems we are choosing to ignore this very present and dangerous situation in lieu of building more homes on our green spaces. Green spaces are vital to keeping climate change at bay. Having expansive green spaces reduces air pollution, reduces flooding, absorbs carbon dioxide (offsetting greenhouse gas emissions) and provides important habitats for a wide variety of insects, animals, birds, amphibians and microorganisms that work together in ecosystems to maintain balance and support life. By choosing to create more urban spaces this will lead to more carbon emissions and due to the nature of substances like tarmac and concrete, increase the risk of flooding. Not only that, but we would be losing a vast amount of farming land and in a time where we should be trying to be self-sufficient when it comes to providing food for our country, we would be going backwards.

I understand that we need to plan for development and can see very clearly that South Warwickshire will be taking a hit in one way or another. If I have to look at other potential sites to host a development of this scale then it would be X1 & X2 as these are areas that have already been heavily developed with new housing and have much better infrastructure in regard to the accessibility to motorways and bigger roads. They are also close to large retail areas and have better accessibility for anyone without a car. These sites are also not Greenbelt and would avoid the permanent loss of our green areas.

I hope you have seen clearly from the above explanation, that I am a resident who knows the roads, infrastructure and area very well and I know the impact this will have on the wellbeing and daily lives of thousands of people, not just the ones who already live in the area but any that would come to live here should the development go ahead. It would have such an adverse effect on the landscape, climate and a huge fallout for anyone trying to get around South Warwickshire. Sites, 136, 159, 160, 153, 168, 166 and 692 are all completely unsuitable for this mass development.

I ask that you put forward this objection and consider the very dangerous impact of this development on the local area, natural environment and its residents

No

ID sylw: 105833

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: James Webber

I am writing to formally object to the proposed development of industrial, commercial, warehouse,
and distribution units adjacent to the A46 at Stanks Island (SG07). The excessive scale of this project
raises serious concerns regarding transparency, governance, and adherence to planning regulations.
Furthermore, the proposed development disregards crucial environmental and legal protections
designed to safeguard Green Belt land.
Grounds for Objection
Preservation of Green Belt Land
The Green Belt plays a vital role in preventing urban sprawl, maintaining biodiversity, and ensuring
that development remains concentrated in appropriate areas. National planning policies strictly limit
development on Green Belt land to “exceptional circumstances” as per the National Planning Policy
Framework (2023). This proposal does not meet that threshold, particularly when suitable nonGreen Belt sites, such as locations near the M40 in Warwick and existing industrial zones near
Coventry Airport, are available.
Any deviation from existing Local Plan or Neighbourhood Plan protections for SG07 must undergo a
formal review and extensive public consultation. The council should uphold policies that prohibit
Green Belt development rather than set a dangerous precedent for future encroachments.
Environmental Impact and Legal Violations
Approving this development would lead to irreversible damage to local ecosystems, contravening
multiple environmental laws, including:
• The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981
• The Hedgerows Regulations 1997
• The Protection of Badgers Act 1992
• The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010
• The Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000
• The Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006
Moreover, industrial activity will increase carbon emissions, contradicting national efforts to combat
climate change under:
• The Climate Change Act 2008
• The Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) Energy Efficiency Scheme
• The Industrial Emissions Directive (IED)
• The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016
• The UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS)
This development also threatens flood mitigation efforts by eliminating natural drainage systems, in
direct violation of:
• The Flood and Water Management Act 2010
• The Land Drainage Act 1991
• The Water Resources Act 1991
• The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016
Under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, a full
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) should be conducted. Given previous drainage failures in
developments such as Union View, this issue requires full transparency and scrutiny.
Traffic, Pollution, and Road Safety Concerns
The influx of HGVs and commercial traffic will:
• Deteriorate local air quality and increase noise pollution.
• Overburden rural roads not designed for high-capacity industrial traffic.
• Heighten risks for pedestrians and cyclists.
Loss of Green Space and Community Well-being
Public footpaths, bridleways, and open spaces are essential for local residents’ quality of life.
Approving this project would permanently destroy these recreational areas, contradicting the
council’s responsibility to protect Warwickshire’s rural character.
Conclusion
Allowing this proposal would set an irreversible precedent, damaging the environment, undermining
planning integrity, and diminishing residents’ quality of life. I urge the council to reject this
application in favour of sustainable, lawful alternatives

No

ID sylw: 105934

Derbyniwyd: 02/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Ian Price

Main objections:
Inappropriate development of Green Belt
Detrimental impact upon residential amenity.
Impact on traffic and Highways
Insufficient infrastructure
Noise and Smell

No

ID sylw: 105939

Derbyniwyd: 28/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Vanessa McBride

The canal and its environs are a tourist attraction because of their beauty, peace and wildlife. We see otters, cormorants, kingfishers, water voles. I live on Middle Lock Lane which is used by countless cyclists and walkers with children and dogs. They usually cross the A4117 which is already much busier because of 3 recent housing developments close by: Hatton Park, Union View and Hampton Trove. The beautiful walks and bridle paths in this area, across fields within the site and along the canalside bring huge benefits to the health of this small community, benefits which hugely outweigh any possible benefit of yet more housing. We had a number of protracted power cuts in 2024 and broadband is growing less reliable. Warwick Hospital is at breaking point. Site B1 will increase traffic exponentially as there is no infrastructure or shops apart from in Warwick so all traffic will clog the road, making turning out of Middle Lock Lane and other roads even more difficult and dangerous. When the M40 or the A46 is closed because of an accident, flood or road works, traffic dramatically increases on the A4117. Exhaust fumes and traffic noise, including frequent sirens, are already a problem where I live. To build climate resilience, we need the woods and fields within B1 not more concrete and carbon emissions. Please assess the potential impact of this huge proposal, which would build more houses than make up our small village now. The Green Belt has already been ravaged by developments in Hatton – please take expert advice as to congestion, toxic emissions, loss of green areas before you go any further with this terrible plan. Please consider how detrimental this would be to the community here, to local enjoyments, walks, peace, biodiversity and beauty. The woodlands here are full of fauna and flora which enhance the environmental value of this place. Nature is nurtured here and nurtures us. Please protect the heritage and culture of Hatton, its surrounding green spaces and its culture, especially with regard to the areas close by the canal with its famous Hatton Flight locks. Destroying woodland and fields in B1 is not only a further invasion of the Green Belt, part of which is actually a conservation area, to the detriment of local green space and climate resilience, but the impact of another particularly enormous housing development would wreck our precious community cohesion, the character of this old village. A proposal to build a Care Home in the vicinity was recently rejected due to these arguments – the size of the proposed development on B1 would have a far greater detrimental impact than that on the people and wildlife here. Please consider our health and our enjoyment of this area and reject the allocation of this proposal.

No

ID sylw: 106115

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Jane Green

Nifer y bobl: 2

I would like my objections to the proposed development on green field sites around Hatton to be logged.
My objections are:
-this is prime agricultural land. There are more appropriate sites than building on green fields.
-the major impact to rural lives. People currently living in small villages, surrounded by fields, will find themselves in a suburb of Warwick.
- the infrastructure to deal with the volume of people & building will not be sufficient. These are country lanes, not suitable for large scale building traffic. The impact of new houses at Hatton park has been significant for the last 18 months. This has affected the quality of life for all local residents. Simply travelling into Warwick at the best of times is challenging. To add 10s of 1000s more people to the mix is unsustainable, & compounding an already dreadful situation.
- major services - electricity & water - are not in place to support a huge increase in properties. Our water pressure is repeatedly poor, & has been for years due to existing demand.

No

ID sylw: 106118

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: CLLR Peter Phillips

1.The site is the last remaining part of the Green Belt between Warwick and Hatton Park. With this proposed development, Hatton Park, currently a village, would effectively become subsumed into Warwick and will form another suburb of Warwick. It’s separate identity would be lost.
At the moment the A46 forms a “natural” break between the town of Warwick and the rural villages. This would be lost with this development. It would therefore cause irreparable damage to the Green Belt and is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, both for the direct harm it causes to the Green Belt, and from the development of a major industrial area between two residential areas (i.e. between Woodloes and Hatton Park). There are better areas within Warwick District that are more suitable, such as SG09
2. Stanks Island over the A46 has had a recent upgrade, but is still subject to delays during the rush-hour. There is little room to further improve the roundabout and this development would significantly increase the volume of traffic, causing significant delays, air pollution and the potential for queues back onto the A46 from the slip-road.

3. There is very limited public transport directly to the site, the only bus service being the IndieGo “On-demand” service which serves all the local villages. This on its own is insufficient public transport for SG07 to be a viable option for users of SG07.
While Warwick Parkway is within a 10 to 15 minutes walk of SG07, this is restricted to those employees who have good access to the Chiltern Line.
The site therefore would not meet S03 (A well-connected South Warwickshire), and would result in an over-reliance on cars and the associated increase congestion.

Yes

ID sylw: 106168

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Dr Cameron and Mrs Elizabeth Meades

Nifer y bobl: 2

We would reluctantly suggest that the areas labelled SG01 and SG07 may provide opportunities to provide new developments, and those already erected close by, with the much-needed facilities they require. This is suggested with the hope that the area marked SG01 would be much reduced in size, and due consideration given for the areas within remaining distinct from one another.

No

ID sylw: 106178

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Jade Ronan

As a resident of Hatton Park, it saddens me that our beautiful village will potentially become a large town, but I am worried about other issues even more so.

Firstly, the traffic through Warwick is horrendous as it is, especially at peak times. How will travelling through the town be feasible with potentially 8000-16000 more cars (assuming 1-2 cars per household) on the roads? Surely unless there are plans to knock down and rebuild the whole of Warwick town (please don't do this), this would not be possible?

Secondly, how will the NHS services cope? The hospital waiting lists and A&E wait times are already extremely worrying; it would be devastating and potentially life threatening to so many people to have them lengthened further.

These issues are obviously in addition to the destruction of our beautiful countryside and many habitats, and problems associated with schooling and other services, but are the ones that alarm me the most, and the ones for which I can't see a solution to if the plans are to go ahead.

No

ID sylw: 106265

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Caroline Wilkie

I am writing to the Warwick District Council to highlight my objections to the inclusion of these developments in the SWLP and request that they be removed for the following reasons.
1. Green Belt Destruction: The development would eliminate productive farmland that contributes to food security and environmental sustainability.
2. Destruction of Canal Amenity: the proposed area is adjacent to the conservation area of the Grand Union canal.
3. Insufficient Infrastructure: The proposed 8,000-10,000 houses (comparable to Kenilworth's size) would require significant new infrastructure including hospital expansion, schools, medical facilities, and recreational amenities that aren't adequately planned.
4. Traffic Congestion: Despite proximity to a rail station being cited as justification, how realistic is it to expect people to walk or cycle 2.6-3 miles (particularly the area around Hatton Park) to Hatton Station? The development would realistically add 8,000-10,000 vehicles to already congested roads, particularly the A4177. The proposed commercial development (SG07) would worsen this situation.
5. Inadequate Public Services: Current utilities (drainage, waste, water, electricity) would be overwhelmed without significant advance investment.
6. Environmental Impact: The development would destroy habitat for local wildlife and birds. I am particularly concerned about extra traffic accessing houses via Brownley Green Lane, an ancient highway, previously deemed unsuitable for increased traffic when the Inspector was looking at the previous Local Plan.
7. Community Disruption: The development would transform our well-established small rural communities into urban sprawl, causing some current residents to consider leaving the area and breaking up the community.
In summary, I consider these developments to be inappropriate for this green belt area and that they should not be included in the SWLP.

Other

ID sylw: 106301

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Faith Badger

I really do not understand the need for so many houses in this area. Where would people work?

The agricultural land in this area is extremely precious. Warwickshire has a more moderate climate than other areas of the country and has provided milk, eggs, cereals and meat for the population for years. Why destroy this?

This being said - SG07 is at least infill and bordering good roads so is not such a bad choice for development as is B1 Hatton.

No

ID sylw: 106309

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Leone Nicholson

no further comment supplied

No

ID sylw: 106383

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Geoff Wood

As resident of Hatton Park I have been keeping abreast of the current proposals to build up to 8,000+ homes on what is primary green belt land in the immediate vicinity, not to mention industrial buildings and infrastructure necessary to support this huge explosion of buildings.
Sir Keir Starmer, following the aftermath of the change of government announced a new category of land called “grey belt” which prioritised development on grey and ugly areas of the green belt including scrub land of which I would have no objections to its development.
The area currently earmarked for development falls firmly in the green belt and under no circumstances can be regarded grey or brown belt given the fields comprising vast areas of magnificent Warwickshire countryside the majority of which is being meticulously farmed with the rotation of arable and grazing as each year passes. With many brownfield sites in existence these should be earmarked first to be cleaned up and made suitable for development.
The loss of greenbelt land as a source of food for the nation will have disastrous results, inevitably forcing the need for reliance on imported foods no doubt at an increased cost and inferior quality.
In the addition to the above I have serious reservations as to:
• The level of adequate infrastructure required within the limited boundaries to serve all the new builds and the industrial state.
• Massive road congestion at peak times from 20K additional vehicles of all types.
• Totally overwhelmed GP Practices, Warwick Hospital and dentists.
• Totally overwhelmed public transport and car parks.
• Enormous loss of wildlife which currently thrives alongside us.
• Substantial reduction in property values.
• The whole issue of food security for the future.
• The inevitable breakdown of the unique identity of our community in Hatton.
• The loss of large tracks of countryside and possibly even the loss of rights of way will be detrimental to general wellbeing and to those suffering from mental health.

I wholeheartedly object to the proposed developments, as is apparent from the above. I am not a nimbyist but am deeply concerned for the future environmental preservation of the area.

No

ID sylw: 106448

Derbyniwyd: 20/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Robert Smith

This is the most ludicrous proposed site for a housing development and appears to have been put forward with the objective of financial gain for the land owner and development team, with absolutely no thought to the practicalities of anyone living within the proposed development, or in the surrounding. I have detailed my objections within this document with the following subject headings:
1. Roads and Infrastructure- The road infrastructure surrounding the proposed B1 site is completely inadequate to take even 100 more dwellings, let alone the proposed 8000 new dwellings. A complete overhaul of ALL roads around the development, link roads, and main junctions further afield would be required from the outset (before any dwellings are built) for this to even be considered a potential future site for development
2. Cycling - Cycling on the roads will be dangerous – it is already unsafe, but with 8000 more dwellings it would be suicidal. There was talk that a huge cycle path would be created as part of the proposed B1 development to run from Hatton Station all the way through to Warwick. Whilst this is a nice idea and probably ticks boxes for their sustainability strategy, in reality the cycle path needs to cut under VERY low and difficult arched canal bridges and narrow areas that cannot be widened.
3. Railway- Hatton Station is not a suitable railway station to build a new town around. The services to and from Hatton Station from anywhere are extremely limited. The station has no facilities and is unsuitable for users that cannot use stairs as the only way to access platforms 2 & 3 is via the footbridge. A complete redevelopment of Hatton Station from the outset (before any dwellings are built) would be required for this to even be considered a potential future site for development.
4. Social Housing - The location of Hatton station or the B1 proposed site is not suitable for social housing. Train services are extremely poor and extremely expensive – there is also no way of crossing the track other than via the footbridge, so people with disabilities would struggle, or find it impossible to use the service. With no main supermarkets within walking distance, a train journey leads to a cost of circa £10 to every shopping trip, and also due to the poor train times, means a round-trip to Dorridge or Warwick can take 4 hours or more. There are no other conveniences nearby. There is also no other employment opportunities nearby – so to build social housing on this site, would be to further isolate people possibly already in a vulnerable position.
5. Greenbelt- Proposed site B1 is greenbelt land that has always been actively used for agriculture, providing valuable food for our country. This should not be used for a housing development when there are other proposed sites within the SWLP that encourage the recycling of derelict and other urban land – for example the development of areas around Wellesbourne airfield and other brownfield sites that should be allocated and used first, before considering greenbelt as an option. Whilst there are brownfield and other non-greenbelt locations, proposed site B1 should be excluded from the preferred options, and excluded from any future development options.
6. Village Life- People move to villages purposefully to live a quieter life away from noise, light pollution, heavy traffic, crime etc and to a place where they can raise children in a slower pace of life, walking, cycling, dog walking etc, without the fear of heavy traffic or crime. Building a town of 8000 dwellings not only takes that away from the occupants of the mere 100 dwellings at Hatton Station, but also takes it away from the occupants of all surrounding villages and hamlets nearby including Shrewley, Little Shrewley, Pinley Green, Hatton Green, Yew Green, Haseley, Littleworth, Wolverton, Norton Lindsey, Claverdon, Langley, Rowington, Lapworth and many more surrounding areas.
7. Employment - There is very little, to no, employment nearby. The developers proposal leads to deceive the local government within its proposals stating there is adequate employment within the area through Hatton Country World and Hatton Technology Park. The reality of the situation is that everyone will need to travel to their place of employment which will have a greater impact on the environment as well as local transport infrastructure. This could also potentially lead to a pocket of deprivation should travel not be an option for occupants within standard and social housing within the proposed new development.
8. Better Sites- Hatton Park has already been developed and had extensions to that development. This has already put a significant stress on the rural setting, wildlife, and countryside, around Hatton as well as put a stress on local infrastructure.
Sites such as E1, G1, F3, F2, F1 & X1 offer significant scales of development without encroaching on greenbelt, which should be a last resort as per the NPPF
Sites such as G1, F3, F2, F1, A1, A2 & X1 have much better existing road infrastructure
Sites such as F3, F2, G1 & E1 contribute less to what would be deemed as urban sprawl (if they were greenbelt).

No

ID sylw: 106455

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Caroline Southall

Sustainability

The proposal does not align with sustainable growth policies. There is a lack of good connection to public transport routes and the proposal would place additional strain on existing public transport links B1/SG07 fails to meet South Warwickshire sustainable development requirements which aim to balance economic growth with environmental protection of social well-being as such this would be unsound and should not be progressed.

Flooding

There are existing flooding problems in the area. It is not clear from the proposed local plan if flood mapping data has been considered and assessed. Drainage in the area is insufficient for the existing housing the proposed development under B1/SG07 could exacerbate these issues leading to an increase of flooding for current or future residence consequently B1SG07would be unsound if progressed

In conclusion I strongly oppose the adoption of B1/SG07 in the South Warwickshire local plan. It is clear that this site would be unsound due to the unsustainable pressures it would place on the local community, local road network, local health and educational infrastructure. I am also concerned that development of these sites would do immeasurable harm to the local environment and wildlife. Furthermore, the whole plan is based on AI conceptual designs rather than fact as it currently stands.

Consequently B1/SG07 should be removed from consideration for many further iterations of the local plan. I hope that the planning authority will take these concerns into account.

No

ID sylw: 106488

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Andrew Ruyssevelt

I wish to formally object to the proposed construction of industrial, commercial, warehouse,

and distribution units at Stank’s Island (SG07). This project is disproportionate in scale and

raises concerns regarding adherence to responsible planning regulations and environmental

stewardship.

Grounds for Objection

Green Belt Protection

The Green Belt is intended to prevent urban sprawl, conserve natural landscapes, and

ensure balanced development. This project contradicts the principles set forth in national

planning regulations, which emphasize urban expansion within designated zones rather

than protected rural areas.

The National Planning Policy Framework (2023) dictates that Green Belt land should remain

untouched unless "exceptional circumstances" apply. Given that viable alternative

locations—such as designated industrial zones near the M40 and Coventry—are available,

this proposal is both unnecessary and inappropriate.

Environmental and Legislative Violations

This project endangers local ecosystems and protected wildlife habitats, breaching several

key laws, including:

• The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981

• The Hedgerows Regulations 1997

• The Protection of Badgers Act 1992

• The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010

• The Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000

• The Natural Environment & Rural Communities Act 2006

In addition, the increased carbon footprint from industrial operations contravenes:

• The Climate Change Act 2008

• The Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) Energy Efficiency Scheme

• The Industrial Emissions Directive (IED)

• The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016

• The UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS)

The project also heightens flood risks by disrupting natural drainage, in direct violation of:

• The Flood and Water Management Act 2010

• The Land Drainage Act 1991

• The Water Resources Act 1991

• The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016



Traffic and Infrastructure Strain

If allowed, this development will cause an influx of HGVs, leading to:

• Elevated air and noise pollution.

• Increased congestion on already overburdened roads.

• Higher accident risks for pedestrians and cyclists.

Loss of Community Green Space

Public footpaths, bridleways, and recreational green spaces will be permanently lost,

negatively impacting local quality of life.

Conclusion

This development is both unnecessary and detrimental to the environment, infrastructure,

and community well-being. I strongly urge the council to reject this proposal in favour of

sustainable alternatives.

Other

ID sylw: 106501

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Mike Dutton

Road access to A4177 at the current location, within 100m Stank’s roundabout/A46 would not meet current guidelines. Substantial reworking of the Old Budbrooke Road [OBR] junction and traffic management would be required.

No

ID sylw: 106541

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Eleanor Gilks

I hope this email finds you well. I’m writing to comment on the proposed preferred options for the SWLP around Hatton, Hampton Magna, Hampton on the Hill and the surrounding Budbrooke area.

I do not believe there should be any more houses built on these surrounding sites. The road networks are not fit for more road users, with peak hours in the morning and evening already being unbearably busy and congested. Adding hundreds more people and cars will make it so much worse.

Additionally, the local schools, doctors and pharmacies are already hugely overwhelmed. It’s a struggle to get an appointment, wait times are long, the staff work tirelessly and face abuse from people who are frustrated by the delays to the service. It’s simply not acceptable to try and add thousands more people to these already struggling institutions and businesses.

Lastly, I am truly concerned about the surrounding flora and fauna that call these proposed sites home. Humans are already encroaching more and more on their homes. There are beautiful species of birds like Green Woodpeckers, Great Spotted Woodpeckers, Kestrels, Buzzards, Kites, numerous smaller birds like finches, tits, robins, field fares, jays and others that will be hugely impacted by increased housing and expansion. Not to mention the impact on the already hugely declining insect population, without which we would not survive. We cannot afford to lose any and more of these species, and the impact they have on people’s mental wellbeing by being able to go out in nature and find joy in the surrounding greenery.

South Warwickshire is already a massively overpopulated area and I beg that you consider the impacts on everyone and everything that lives here should the choice be made to build further housing. It cannot be supported. To support would be to accept that we don’t love our country enough to safeguard the rapidly shrinking beauty that still exists here.

Please listen to the many people that are against these proposed plans.

Other

ID sylw: 106584

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr. James Aggiss

B1 Hatton is unsuitable as a new settlement location and should not be included in the Local Plan for the following reasons:

1. Infrastructure is already insufficient for existing demand. In particular, the A4177 Birmingham Road, the primary link between Hatton and Warwick. The evidence base indicates limited improvement options and this road would become significantly congested.
2. Considerable improvements would be required to the strategic road network, including Stanks Island and Longbridge Island. It is unclear whether such improvements would be deliverable or affordable. This is fundamental to delivering a new settlement site.
3. Site B1 does not have good sustainable transport links and there is limited scope to improve the frequency and capacity of services at Hatton Station or the near non-existent bus service.
4. Other sites including SG07 would provide a better option given proximity to Warwick, connections to principal routes and sustainable transport links. Linking Hatton and Warwick in terms of new development is more logical than a new settlement on the outskirts of Hatton further away from existing built-up areas.
5. The site is within the Green Belt. The other sites in the Plan which are not in the Green Belt should be considered first.

No

ID sylw: 106686

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Alan Davies

• Loss of Green Belt - the proposed merging of this development with Hatton Park, Union View and onwards to Hatton creates one large urban sprawl continuing over the A46 into Warwick.
• Road Infrastructure - there will be a significant increase in traffic around Stanks Island, the A4177 and the A46 towards Longbridge Island.
• Loss of Farmland - as a nation we are losing our farmland and that leads to expensive imports. The present fragile nature of the world geopolitics means we should be more, not less independent in food production.

No

ID sylw: 106688

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Laura Bartlett

1. This green belt site, situated near the Stanks Island, would add to the traffic congestion and would necessitate a new access onto the A46.
2. There has already been commercial development west of Warwick which has also contributed to the traffic congestion.

No

ID sylw: 106690

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Laura Bartlett

1. This green belt site, situated near the Stanks Island, would add to the traffic congestion and would necessitate a new access onto the A46.
2. There has already been commercial development west of Warwick which has also contributed to the traffic congestion.

No

ID sylw: 106692

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: John B. Williams

There should be no industrial development on the site. This is green belt & the proposed development should be on brownfield land and not agricultural.

No

ID sylw: 106726

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr R Hewer

HGV and associated traffic issues on an already congested Birmingham Road / Stanks Island / and Warwick Centre.

No

ID sylw: 106732

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: James Tranter

I oppose SG07 because of concerns about traffic, pollution, development on the green Belt, and pressure on local services.

No

ID sylw: 106776

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Valerie Burrows

I also object to the proposals for land at Wedgnock Park Farm Employment Group SG07 to be developed for business uses. This would severely impact the green belt buffer to the west of Warwick and cause the loss of large tracts of prime agricultural land and green open space. It would also place an enormous strain on the already inadequate transport infrastructures.

No

ID sylw: 106818

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Jack Beever

No greenbelt land should be lost to commercial development, which will have serious consequences on pollution. the road infrastructure struggles to cope at the moment and would require multi million pound investment to improve it.

No

ID sylw: 106836

Derbyniwyd: 24/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Ruth Spaczyk

Wedgnock Park Farm is unsuitable given its proximity to Stanks Island, which is already congested at peak times. A right turn immediately off the Island would not be possible therefore the traffic would have to go down the Birmingham Road to Hatton Park to Hatton Park Island and turn back to gain access.

The farm is fully functioning with livestock and agriculture and goes against the government's direction to retain fully operating farmland for a future food source. SG07 is also in the Greenbelt. SG09 is an alternative to SG07. SG09 is not in the Greenbelt and it has greater accessibility for traffic. The Government has stated that greenbelt land should only be used where there is no alternative or exceptional circumstance.