Yes

ID sylw: 100374

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Aimee Carter

New housing should be developed on land that has already been built on, not on protected Green Belt land. Urban areas and brownfield sites already have the infrastructure to support new developments, reducing the pressure on roads, schools, and healthcare.
Building in non-Green Belt areas also means:
• Less environmental damage and better protection for wildlife.
• More sustainable transport options, reducing long commutes and carbon emissions.
• Preventing towns and villages from merging and losing their unique identities.
• Reducing flood risks caused by overdevelopment.
Destroying the Green Belt isn’t the answer—there are much better options available.

Yes

ID sylw: 100591

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Residents Concerned for Kenilworth South

Support housing development on non-green belt land.

Other

ID sylw: 100607

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Campaign to Protect Rural England - Warwickshire

This is a a very large area of farmland, 354 ha. It includes Tachbrook Mallory, the prominent wood on Highdown Hill and two farms. The land SW of Harbury Lane would not be a suitable strategic growth extension.
The land between Harbury Lane and the railway is the site of the 1930s Leamington Airfield and includes a scrapyard and a container storage base. It lies in the area of Whitnash Town Council and part is suggested for a new settlment ('X2'). An urban extension here is possible, but that would depend on the future of the golf course.

Yes

ID sylw: 101321

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Zoe Leventhal

One of largest sites and outside of green belt. to be supported over all GB sites and to be encouraged in view of size and housing capacity

No

ID sylw: 101753

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Miss Janet Neale

This area cannot take any more growth. The highways network is broken, schools can't cope and public transport is poor.
Homes need to go to new settlements away from the urban sprawl which is now Warwick, Leamington and Whitnash.

No

ID sylw: 101843

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Bishop's Tachbrook Parish Council

Site SG11 – South East of Whitnash would have major adverse impacts, including increased carbon footprint, harm to a Local Wildlife Site, listed buildings and high-quality agricultural land. It contradicts the SWLP’s evidence-led strategy, as it is open countryside, lacks sustainable transport links and is not in an area of deprivation. Parts of the site are at flood risk and its development would lead to coalescence between Whitnash and Bishop’s Tachbrook. While it provides housing/employment land, its allocation is unsustainable and inconsistent with national and local planning policies, particularly regarding heritage, environmental protection and strategic growth planning.

No

ID sylw: 102077

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Malcolm Lines

This area impacts heavily on Green Belt, while also overlaid as a potential new settlement. It would advance the coalescence of existing communities/identities. There is no supportable infrastructure in place and highways are inappropriate. Together with sites (REFIDs 46 and 872) it would bracket L&CGC Golf Club such that residents would be at risk of stray golf balls.

The golf course is integral to WTC's N'hood Plan and it is impossible these sites could be developed without development of bridleway with loss of amenity and forfeiture of L&CGC land. This is not sustainable.

No

ID sylw: 102175

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Niall Shimmin

Location will clearly overload Harbury Lane and the junction with the Fosse.
It floods regularly.

No

ID sylw: 102193

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Niall Shimmin

Will overload Harbury Lane which is already a bottle neck at the Fosse junction, greatly improved by recent works.
Flood regularly.

Yes

ID sylw: 102575

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Simon Andrews

Development on non-green belt land should be prioritised over development on green belt. Total housing needs can be met without developing on green belt so morally not right to remove green belt without exceptional cause.
These areas are better supported with existing infrastructure and transport network without requiring major investment on more remote, less connected areas.
The opportunity in terms of yield is higher in these areas so there is a duty to fulfil the housing needs in the most responsible way considering this and the green belt obligations.

Yes

ID sylw: 102715

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Liz Churchill

I prefer to see all non Green-belt sites being used.

Other

ID sylw: 102758

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Severn Trent Water

This development will likely require treatment at Warwick - Longbridge (STW) Treatment Works, this Wastewater Treatment Works has medium capacity and high environmental constraints. Due to the size of the development, it is recommended that network upgrades will be required, alongside hydraulic modelling and engagement with STW. Overall this development site is considered a medium/high risk location, there is some capacity however in order to accommodate growth, infrastructure upgrades will be required and we would need to work closely to understand build timelines, in order to plan accordingly.

No

ID sylw: 102946

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Howard Easton

Given that all maps fail to include the route of HS2, the impact of these plans fail to indicate the how much of Warwickshire is going to be destroyed by these myopic proposals.

No

ID sylw: 102986

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Chesterton and Kingston Parish Meeting

This area along Harbury Lane overlaps potential new settlement site X2. It extends south east of the Fosseway along Harbury Lane to include land that runs up to the 17th century Grade 1 ancient monument Chesterton Windmill. This area is completely dependent on road transport. There is flooding along Harbury Lane on a regular basis. The landscape from the Fosseway up to the windmill ( Site ID 612) is very steep and is an area with many and significant archaeological features.

Yes

ID sylw: 103076

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Neal Appleton

Whilst the aim is for people to live close to where they work and for Active Travel to be a priority, it must be acknowledged that people often choose to reside and work in different places. Commuting is the norm and the SWLP must accommodate this. Settlement expansion and locations of new settlements must be supported by transport infrastructure.

Yes

ID sylw: 103272

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Keith Allan

If building of new houses is to go ahead then building on non-Green belt land is more appropriate

Yes

ID sylw: 103479

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Carol Jones

Support strategic growth locations on non-greenbelt land.

Other

ID sylw: 103501

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Sarah Shalgosky

n'a

No

ID sylw: 103641

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Chesterton and Kingston Parish Meeting

Within this strategic growth location there is site ID 591 " Land at Windmill Hill Farm" This is a site that was rejected for planning permission on 9 July 2024 ( App ref 23/02902/FUL).

Yes

ID sylw: 103778

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: 103906

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Dr Diana Taulbut

Whitnash and Bishop's Tachbrook are close enough as it is. It's completely disrespectful to the integrity of both settlements to join them together.

No

ID sylw: 104007

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Kay Haycock

Deliverability is impossible due to infrastructure deficits, with no clear plans to mitigate traffic congestion or environmental degradation.
Inconsistent with NPPF principles, particularly regarding environmental sustainability and preserving distinct settlement identities i.e., that of Bishop’s Tachbrook village.
Conclusion
SG11 should be reconsidered due to adverse environmental, heritage, and infrastructure impacts.

Yes

ID sylw: 104034

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Dr Nicola Sawle

non greenbelt and meets the M40 requirement

No

ID sylw: 104080

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Amanda Waters

Would cause damage to surrounding countryside and additional traffic. Not so close to existing employment centres as others or to public transport or road network

No

ID sylw: 104093

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Louis haycock

Deliverability is impossible due to infrastructure deficits, with no clear plans to mitigate traffic congestion or environmental degradation.
Inconsistent with NPPF principles, particularly regarding environmental sustainability and preserving distinct settlement identities i.e., that of Bishop’s Tachbrook village.
Conclusion
SG11 should be reconsidered due to adverse environmental, heritage, and infrastructure impacts.

Yes

ID sylw: 104303

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Carl Bergstrom

this is a good development plan

Yes

ID sylw: 104442

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Sharon Ward

I support the proposed strategic growth location SG11 because it focuses development on non-greenbelt land, using existing infrastructure rather than requiring costly new roads and services. This approach enables much-needed housing while avoiding damage to rural landscapes, important footpaths, and the area’s heritage. By building where facilities and transport links already exist, SG11 supports sustainable, well-planned growth that fits the local context.

No

ID sylw: 104526

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Ailsa Chambers

The independent village characteristics of Bishops Tachbrook are under severe threat owing to the constant sprawl of development between the village and Leamington. It is not clear why this location has been selected over and above other options. The loss of prime agricultural land does not justify the proposal. We already experience traffic congestion as a result of previous developments and there are insufficient infrastructure plans to mitigate further population growth. The environmental loss of natural habitats from further development cannot be mitigated satisfactorily by any measure - too much has been lost already.

Other

ID sylw: 104550

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: 104580

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Kay Williams

yes as it is not in the green belt