Yes

ID sylw: 103299

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Keith Allan

If the construction of new houses is to proceed, it is more appropriate to construct on non-Green Belt land.

Yes

ID sylw: 103473

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Carol Jones

Support strategic growth locations on non-greenbelt land.

Other

ID sylw: 103567

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Phil Kohler

If this site were to go forward, it would be very important to improve the junction between Birmingham Road and Eastley Crescent. At peak times, it is virtually impossible to exit from Eastley Crescent in the direction of Warwick and ambiguous road markings cause frequent altercations between drivers.

No

ID sylw: 103607

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs june Goldsmith

Too close to Warwick will increase congestion

Yes

ID sylw: 103679

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Steve Churchill

I believe that all new development should be made only on Non Green Belt or Brown Field sites.

Yes

ID sylw: 103734

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Steve Churchill

I believe that all new development should be made only on Non Green Belt or Brown Field sites.

No

ID sylw: 103834

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Ira Goldsmith

Too close to Warwick. Traffic congestion, pollution, loss of green belt adjacent to Warwick.

Yes

ID sylw: 104069

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Amanda Waters

Near employment opportunities and access to M40 and rail links

Yes

ID sylw: 104293

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Carl Bergstrom

solid option

Yes

ID sylw: 104418

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Sharon Ward

I support the proposed strategic growth location SG08 because it focuses development on non-greenbelt land, where infrastructure already exists, reducing the need for costly new roads and utilities. This approach avoids unnecessary development in sensitive rural areas, protecting historic footpaths and local heritage while allowing for sustainable growth in more suitable location. By concentrating development where services are already in place, SG08 offers a practical solution that meets housing needs without damaging the environment or diminishing the quality of life for current and future residents. This makes it a sensible and responsible choice for long-term planning.

Other

ID sylw: 104545

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Ian Dunning

YES ONLY IF the development is high density, linked with public transport and active travel infrastructure.

Do not build detached homes anywhere.
Painted bicycle gutters are NOT active travel infrastructure.
A bus is a bad public transport solution.

Yes

ID sylw: 104559

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Kay Williams

This is not green belt land so you are welcome to build here.

Yes

ID sylw: 104617

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Ian Dunning

Stop building sprawling car-dependent suburbia. You are killing people with these decisions. Cars kill people, stop making people have to get in their cars to get to places. Build high density walkable neighbourhoods with active travel infrastructure.

Paint is not cycling infrastructure.
Buses are bad public transport.
Don't build any detached houses.

Yes

ID sylw: 104843

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Elizabeth Heath

This development does not take land out of greenbelt and therefore has a lower negative impact on biodiversity. It's also closer to existing infrastructure and services

Yes

ID sylw: 104923

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Charlotte Holme

This may be a suitable site for further development given the development already undertaken in the area. so long as the infrastructure is put in place to cope with the traffic

No

ID sylw: 105054

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs C Hart

I object to this site being developed due to the impact of extra traffic on country roads. Impact on wildlife habitats. Noise pollution for local residents. The road network and general infrastructure would need upgrading at huge cost and disturbance to residents.

No

ID sylw: 105068

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs D Hill

I am writing to register my objection to a proposed housing development off Hampton Road,

This is an area that I had the pleasure of walking with a friend on a regular basis over many years. There has already been a huge housing development
around the Mayne Close area.

To go ahead and build a housing development in this area I believe that highway safety will be compromised.
The road capacity is inadequate with a detrimental impact of means of access. In my opinion it will have an adverse impact on the countryside, and once lost it will have a devastating impact on the wildlife and our green fields, hedges and I feel very strongly about this.

No

ID sylw: 105161

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mark Field

I wish to object to the plans on building industrial buildings and houses around Hampton on the hill and Hampton magna that have been put forward.

This will destroy the villages and also increase traffic probably 4 fold. It is far too busy on the Hatton road as it is let alone before hundreds more people and businesses add to the traffic.

There are surely other brown field areas that could be selected rather than carving up green belt land.

Please note my strong objection to all plans around these two areas. It will ruin the landscape and add further pressure to roads in an already very busy village.

Other

ID sylw: 105225

Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Stratford upon Avon District Council

West of Warwick Group – SG08 – NO OBJECTION

No

ID sylw: 105829

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: 105924

Derbyniwyd: 01/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Suzanne Keevil

I am writing to object to yet more proposed housing in and around my village Kineton.

Having moved here with my elderly father for some peace and quiet I am quite shocked at how much building is being planned in this area! We have a lovely village with the schools and doctors, but it is already increasingly difficult to get an appointment without a nearly 2 week wait!

There is also issues with water around Lighthorne Road where I live, that, topped with increased traffic over the victorian bridge on the way into the village the increased traffic would be a huge problem.

I strongly object to more houses in and around our village!

Other

ID sylw: 106503

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Mike Dutton

The only access to this location is via Hampton Road. There are no significant services/infrastructure. This would have a significant detrimental impact on Hampton Magna

No

ID sylw: 106542

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.

No

ID sylw: 106733

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: James Tranter

I oppose SGO8 because of concerns about traffic, pollution, development on the green Belt, and pressure on local services.

Other

ID sylw: 106915

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Historic England

Site abuts Warwick CA – will need assessment, but no major concerns

Recommend: HIA prior to allocation.

No

ID sylw: 107144

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: L.I. Pearce

I wish to object to the proposed plan "around" Hampton Magna, building of more homes on Green Belt Land, Impact on the environment, traffic and transport, noise levels and pollution, also local amenities and services.

Our roads are already rat runs around Hampton Magna, they are extremely busy roads with grid lock. Concerns for wildlife and historical significance of a site. Both England and Wales have wildlife protection and policies. Taking all this into account, we will become grid locked. Please register my serious concerns.

Yes

ID sylw: 107419

Derbyniwyd: 16/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Moreton Morrell Parish Council

No Objection

No

ID sylw: 107716

Derbyniwyd: 16/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr & Mrs Peter & Linda Bromley

The Preferred Option of land next to Warwick Racecourse (EO7000222) is prone to flooding. There is a serious problem of flooding on the bend at the corner of the Racecourse and the ditch that used to run along the Common for surface water run-off has been filled in. Building on this Greenfield site of arable land will exacerbate flooding in surrounding areas. This is because housing and concrete pavements render the land surface impermeable and displace water to surrounding areas such as Hampton Road, which floods frequently already, Forbes Estate and Chase Meadow. The Gog Brook Flood Alleviation Scheme was intended to alleviate flooding but has proved ineffective and Gog Brook is completely overgrown with vegetation and is silted up. The water table in this area is only a foot below the surface and, with climate change, regular flooding will become inevitable.

There will be a notable increase in traffic congestion in surrounding roads, particularly Hampton Road leading to the bottleneck of Hampton Street.

A County Councillor advises that the County’s Heritage and Culture unit retains aerial photographs of this site showing a Roman villa situated across the area. Do you really want to face another Kenilworth swimming pool fiasco by attempting to build on this site?