Yes

ID sylw: 96472

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Peter Robbins

I can see some logic given the existence of an existing train station.

Yes

ID sylw: 96486

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Eileen Robbins

I can see some logic given the existence of an existing train station.

Yes

ID sylw: 96490

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Eileen Robbins

I can see some logic given the existence of an existing train station.

No

ID sylw: 96491

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Susan Burman

I strongly object to this proposal, firstly our Green Belt is slowly being destroyed, the established hedge and trees will be taken way and although the developers say they will replace they have destroyed all habitat for birds and small mammals, which is a disaster on our ecosystem.

Secondly, the land proposed is well established farmland and the loss of this does not bode well for farming. it seems to do away with green belt & farming without the correct intra structure of roads, power supplies, water and drainage plus sewage before developing is not easily accepted by the residents.

No

ID sylw: 96640

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Kathryn Heywood

I object to the proposed development due to:-
1. Significant removal of Green Belt Land: affecting urban sprawl and impacting wildlife & the rural community.
2. Infrastructure Strain: impacting transport, schools and healthcare.
3. Environmental concerns: reducing biodiversity, natural habitats and disrupting ecosystems.
4. Increased Traffic & Pollution: increasing emissions, congestion, pollution and removing local food production.
5. Community impact: a disproportionate development based on current size, altering the social fabric, historic character, including the canals, and impacting the wider community’s enjoyment of the area resulting in a significant deterioration of their wellbeing.
6. Exacerbated by the proposed SG07 development.

No

ID sylw: 96692

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Janet Gee

This potential development would be almost as large as Kenilworth, another town and loss of valuable countryside. Current infrastructure cannot accommodate such a development.
If this option was chosen it would result in a lot of extra traffic on our country lanes as traffic tries to avoid the disruption.
With the potential development of Stanks Island too, this would extend Warwick significantly to the west.
How does this preserve our greenbelt, our Forest of Arden landscape and countryside for recreational use?
How does this meet your objective for attractive development / build beautiful?

No

ID sylw: 96734

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Malcolm Hayes

Such a large development will put a lot of traffic on to the A4177 which is already busy at peak periods and becomes every time there is problem with the A46 or M40.
The existing railway station is very small and has a limited service to either Birmingham or London. It would not be able to cope with the inevitable.
The aim of the settlement appears to be to provide employment locally but it is more likely that people living in this settlement will have jobs in London, Coventry or Birmingham.
The local school cannot cope with more pupils.

Other

ID sylw: 96777

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Alcester Town Council

Alcester Town Council, Arrow with Weethley Parish Council, Kinwarton Parish Council, Wixford Parish Council and Great Alne Parish Council (together referred to as Alcester Parishes Group or ‘APG’) has no comment.

No

ID sylw: 96782

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Prudence Kalinski

Hatton Station is a beautiful rural area full of the wonders of nature, the combination of the canal and open fields means that wildlife here is abundant. A stroll across the fields will lead to sightings of muntjac, roe deer, badgers, pheasants, hares, bats, and many birds of prey. We even frequently see hedgehogs which very rare nowadays. The thought of all these fields being built on, and the habitats for these wonderful creatures being destroyed is really disheartening, there are plenty of brown field sites which would cause much less disruption to the animals we share this planet with.

No

ID sylw: 96789

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr David Birch

I Object because it is green belt land for Farming / local nature / Hedges / Wood Land. The infrastructure is totally unsuitable for the increase in population to the area . The traffic flow would increase to unmanageable levels on the present lanes , which are narrow and have many blind corners . And on the A4177 into Warwick / Leamington / M40 , already at capacity during rush hour . New junctions would be required at the intersections with B4439 - A4177 - Brownley green lane. Hatton Railway Station would require a larger car park . New schools

No

ID sylw: 96791

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Prudence Kalinski

Hatton Station is a beautiful rural area full of the wonders of nature, the combination of the canal and open fields means that wildlife here is abundant. A stroll across the fields will lead to sightings of muntjac, roe deer, badgers, pheasants, hares, bats, and many birds of prey. We even frequently see hedgehogs which very rare nowadays. The thought of all these fields being built on, and the habitats for these wonderful creatures being destroyed is really disheartening, there are plenty of brown field sites which would cause much less disruption to the animals we share this planet with.

No

ID sylw: 96793

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Heidi Philpott

Local roads are unsuitable for thousands of additional vehicles. Birmingham Road is already busy and it is difficult to exit Hatton Green. There is gridlock whenever there are issues on the A46 or the motorway at Henley. During recent roadworks for the Union View development an additional hour was added to our journey times which had impacts on residents quality of life. There are pollution impacts from congestion.

Green Belt and green spaces need to be protected. Development would ruin deer and bird habitats. Loss of farmland weakens food security.

There would be schooling issues as the proposed additional provision would not be immediate. There is a staffing crisis in education so finding teachers for new schools will be difficult. Without plans for additional hospitals waiting times will increase.

Residents chose to live away from built-up areas for a better quality of life and to enjoy wildlife, peace, and safe walking. The proposed developments

I have a child and chose to live in this area to be away from built up areas and for a better quality of life. Watching wildlife, walking safely and enjoying the quiet. The proposed developments would negatively impact residents physical and mental health.

No

ID sylw: 96796

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Richard Le Page

Site within Green Belt

No

ID sylw: 96821

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Adam Ledger

Site not suitable. Current infrastructure does not support this development - significant disruption to residents for years with increased noise and air pollution. Damage to character of the area, loss of identity around Warwick. Unfathomable destruction of prime ecological habitat which goes against the current conservation site and the plan for bio-diversity net gain

No

ID sylw: 96834

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr GRAHAM COOK

I do not agree with the use of the green belt for housing under any circumstances. We need all our agricultural land to ensure that this country is self sufficient in food instead of importing produce from all over the world, making more emissions.

No

ID sylw: 96866

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Trevor Dutton

The proposed development would severely impact the environment in terms of both culture - the locks in particular - and also wildlife - there is considerable birdlife in this area. Many people in the local area currently enjoy recreational activities to the benefit of their physical and mental health. In addition, the impact on traffic would be unsustainable.

Yes

ID sylw: 96893

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Margaret Jeffery

Close to motorways
Direct train line to Birmingham and London with car park already there for commuters

No

ID sylw: 96953

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Christopher Squire

I oppose the new town development on this farmland, as it would negatively impact the entire Warwick area. It would destroy green belt land, farmland, and natural habitats. The Birmingham Road and A46 are already at capacity, and small country lanes would need significant upgrades, worsening congestion. This development would make the area more crowded, less desirable to live in, and increase pressure on local infrastructure. The knock-on effect would further exacerbate traffic and overcrowding in Warwick, which is already struggling with its current level of busyness. This development is not suitable for the area.

No

ID sylw: 97104

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr. Richard Hickman

Site selection is based on an invitation to landowners. The plans reflect their preferences, and bear little resemblance to Neighbourhood Plans prepared locally over the past decade. The new government's housing targets are excessive but could be met at Long Marston, Gaydon/Lighthorne Health, Warwick Gates and Kingshill.

It is difficult to understand why B1 Hatton has been found 'more suitable' and second for sustainability given the nature of the countryside, limited infrastructure, and limited services. The land proposed by Kingstanding Farm was refused planning consent on grounds of access, inadequate drainage and commercial viability. The adjoining land owned by Haseley Estates would likely fail on the same grounds. The area of most concern is the Arkwright Estate land. The proposals fail to meet the SWLP criteria and would harm the rural setting through urban sprawl and exacerbating high traffic levels. They would effectively eradicate Green Belt between Warwick, Stratford-upon-Avon, and South Birmingham. Only a few hundred jobs would be provided, the housing requiring several thousand.

Warwick is congested. Most schools and industry is south of the Avon, served by only two bridges. Much of the population will travel through Warwick to seek work in Tachbrook and Gaydon. The land is bounded by busy commuter routes with commercial and school traffic. The Grand Union Canal and railway will subdivide the community. The recent road works at Union View demonstrate the dangers when motorists seek alternative routes on inadequate country lanes.

The proposed development would destroy local amenities and the rural nature of the area which enables walking, riding, jogging and cycling. Recent housing developments and climate change have led to regular flooding in areas such as Brownley Green Lane, the layby off the A4177 and Dark Lane. The road drainage outfall has over-reached capacity. Further developments would require extensive infrastructure improvements.

No

ID sylw: 97210

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms penny-anne cullen

South Warwickshire Local Plan B1 “Land at Hatton”

The fundamental aim of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is to protect the essential characteristics of the Green Belt and prevent urban sprawl.

In the context of the Framework, my objections refer to the third Preferred Options the consultation for the South Warwickshire Local Plan (SWLP). This phase is based on an invitation to local landowners to express their intention to sell parts or all of their land for development. This invitation to treat has generated speculation and self interest in people whom are guardians of our heritage. Hence the land that is now under consideration for development bears scant or no relationship to the Local Plans prepared by local teams from parishes and communities over the past decade. However, the current consultation has gained an added importance by the new Labour Government’s intention to build one and a half million new homes within the next five years. This objective cannot be verified by any validated data and can only be considered as a populist, ill-conceived scheme. Taking the Government’s target for housing the share for South Warwickshire is just over 2,000 homes a year, which is provided by Long Marston, Gaydon ad Lighthorne Health, Warwick Gates and Kingshill Kenilworth developments.

The Local Plan’s criteria not only address the need for housing, but also employment and infrastructure development to meet the needs up to 2050 not five years. Also, whilst protecting our open spaces, green belt and countryside from unplanned development. The criteria also require the development to support the needs of the local issues, around climate change, biodiversity, connectivity and resident wellbeing.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPFF) states that, once established, Green Belts should only be altered according to “exceptional circumstances”. According to the NPPF, the openness and permanence of the Green Belt cannot be destroyed unless there is evidence, for the proposition. The SWLP is devoid of such compelling evidence to breach the five purposes of the Green Belt, as required according to the NPFF.

B1 “Land at Hatton” a total of 403 hectares, includes the land north of Hatton following Brownley Green Lane owned by Haseley Estates and the land north of Hatton Park owned by Kingstanding Farm. But mainly the Arkwright Estate, that includes the fields either side of Hatton Green and the land both sides of Dark Lane down to Hatton Station. There are also a number of small sites around Hatton Terrace and the Union Cannel.

Claims for these sites have been made of 8,000 high density housing and supporting employment and infrastructure. Furthermore, the proposals have been designated “More suitable” but this designation raises the question that is “more suitable than what?”. The frailty of evidence also provides no justification that “Land at Hatton”.is only rated second for “Sustainability”. In this vein, the existing schools, social welfare and medical practices cannot support a quantum increase in the population. Indeed, it is an axiom that Warwick Hospital is currently overloaded and there are np plans for its expansion. When considering the very nature of the country side, limited infrastructure, sparce support services and the welfare of the local population it is hard to comprehend what influence was brought to bear to justify such designations.

Firstly, the land to the north of Hatton following Brownley Green Lane and Hatton Park. The land proposed by Kingstanding Farm was refused planning consent some years ago on the grounds of traffic access, inadequate drainage and commercial viability. The refusal was much to the relief of the developers. It is therefore a fair assumption that the adjoining land owned by Haseley Estates would also fail planning on the same grounds should any developer be unwise to consider the opportunity.

The area of most concern for development is the land designated the Arkwright Estate. The proposals for development fail to meet any of the SWLP criteria harming the rural setting by forming urban sprawl and greatly adding to the already high traffic levels.
It vital that the Green Belt should not be undermined and the proposed development would effectively eradicate any Green Belt between Warwick, Stratford upon Avon and South Birmingham.

The areas designated for high density housing can not be supported by the inadequate areas designated for local employment. The proposals would only provide a few hundred “jobs” where as the housing volume proposed would require several thousand.
The impact of a large population on the fringe of Warwick should not be ignored. The town is congested, the majority of schools and industry lies to the south of the river Avon which is only served only by two bridges. One narrow bridge by the castle and one on the M40. As the SWLP provides little scope for employment and hence much of the new population will be obliged to travel through Warwick to seek work in the industrial estates of Tachbrook and Gaydon. This clearly is impossible.

The land is bounded by the A4177, B 4439 and local minor roads, often only a single track., to the A1448. All busy comminutor routs with commercial and school traffic. Three is also the Grand Union Cannel and a railway that will sub divide the community adding greatly to infrastructure costs. It is difficult to imagine the disruption and delay that would be caused to commuters and local travellers around this area through the prolonged construction activity the proposed development would involve. The recent and prolonged road works at Union View housing development on the A4177 at Hatton Park was a clear indication of the disruption and danger that will occurs when motorists seek alternative routs on country lanes that are totally inadequate. For example, during the construction on the A 4177 Dark Lane and Hatton Green became a common alternative route for commuters. As a result, many accidents occurred and the Ferncumbe school children at were put in danger by the traffic.

It is quite clear that there no local support for the proposed development other than that of the local landowners. A poster was displayed, briefly, stating that over 60% wanted the development. The poster was unspecific and had no justification for its claim and is palpable nonsense.

The local community is well established, having village halls, community activities are well attended. As are the churches and schools. The developments at Hatton Park has been adopted as a fair contribution to the nations growing population. However, the community values the rural nature of the area: walking, riding, jogging and cycling are all popular on the local lanes and can be enjoyed in safety. The onset of the proposed development would totally destroy these amenities.

The results from climate change and recent housing developments can clearly be witnessed in and around the lanes and fields of Hatton. For example, Brownley Green Lane, the layby off the A4177 and Dark Lane are now increasing liable to flooding. In the past flooding on these lanes could be expected only several times a year. Such floods are now a regular occurrence despite the efforts of the Council to improve the outfalls. However, it is now considered by the contractors that the road drainage outfall has over reached its capacity and any further developments would require extensive infrastructure improvements.

In conclusion the destruction of the Green Belt will add to climate change, further deuteriation in biodiversity and the disruption to the lives, wellbeing and the local community. Therefore, the entire proposals in B1 in the SWLP are untenable and unnecessary. We can only dread the impact such developments and increased traffic would have on our fragile biodiversity.

Furthermore, the authority fails to demonstrate that it has examined the reasonable options, as stated in the NPFF. Thus, any assessment the existence of alternative options, namely brownfield, grey belt and underutilised land is absent.

No

ID sylw: 97288

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Kyn Aizlewood

I have attended the developer presentation and Shrewley Parish Council meetings, engaging with KHSR discussions. My key concerns are:

Infrastructure
The proposal requires substantial public investment in transport, roads, healthcare, and schools. Without firm commitments to deliver infrastructure before housing, the plan lacks credibility. The County Council’s response and the Sustainability Appraisal reinforce this.

Loss of Green Belt
Housing need should be met through urban regeneration, not countryside expansion. The Green Belt protects community identity, nature, and arable land. The HELAA-B assessment undervalues its importance, contradicting the NPPF principle that Green Belt should be a last resort for development.

No

ID sylw: 97398

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr James Connolly

This proposed settlement may on paper seem an easy option for the council in that it is a large chunk under one owner enabling many houses on one site, but the infrastructure is not in place to support such density. The roads including many narrow back roads will be dangerously gridlocked and are already in a poor state. People will in reality not use the station to commute and the privatised railways will not expand on an unreliable and irregular service. There is no gas and vital farmland/natural habitat will be lost. Brownfield sites should always be utilised first.

No

ID sylw: 97399

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: David L Day

The plan for 8000 houses will result in the destruction of acres of Green Belt farmland and the traditional area of the historic Forest of Arden
It will fatally impact on the varied wildlife including Muntjack Deer, Foxes, Badgers, Pheasants as well as Bats and Crested Newts which are a protected species. In addition, access to Warwick will seriously impact on inadequate local roads and services, already subject to travel delays and accidents.
The local Hatton Station cannot be extended and will be unlikely to cope with the inevitable increase in passengers.

Yes

ID sylw: 97437

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Steven Evans

While it still in the Green Belt (not ideal) - if needed then this area is better than other rural areas

-Area has already started to expand - this could be a good further build if supported with infrastructure eg Schools/NHS. -Transport links - could link up better to M40/A46 than other areas of Warwickshire -Less impact on rural villages doing in this area than other Green Belt sites selected - eg Bearley-Wilmcote should not be deem "more suitable"

No

ID sylw: 97444

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr James Hiscox

This large development would impose totally unsustainable loads on local infrastructure - water supplies, drainage, electrical power supply and the road network as well as the social infrastructure. The train line is also unable to accommodate an increase in local traffic.

No

ID sylw: 97541

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Clive Henderson

Local roads cannot cope with increased traffic. The station has limited services and the open green belt nature of the area requires vital protection.

No

ID sylw: 97550

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Don Preston

I applaud the idea that planning is being done on a longer-term basis, but this brings with it difficulties in determining the future requirements with any certainty or clarity. The proposals must be seen in this light.
The local plan is in response to the housing crisis across the country. This arises from the fact that many low-income households struggle to find affordable housing in either the rental or buyers’ markets. This points to a need for social and low-cost housing. The building of entirely new settlements with no more than 10% housing provision in this regard will do little to address this problem and at a significant cost. Resources are scarce and should be targeted at the problem.
Any strategic growth within the area requires both appropriate housing and the associated infrastructure. There has been a substantial number of housing developments in recent times in South Warwickshire and these have not seen infrastructure delivered as part of the development and often not at all.
I therefore have grave concerns that pressure will be put on the existing services relating to schools, transport, roads, and health.
I have specific issues with the proposal for Land at Hatton (B1). Firstly, this uses the existing Arkwright land development which was already the subject of much local opposition. It has been expanded to include the further development of the Hatton estate and almost doubled the size of the new settlement. The addition of eight thousand households on one side of Warwick will render access to Warwick almost impossible. Warwick as a town has little scope to cater for this additional population.
Furthermore, the Hatton area was originally incorporated in the proposal by the existing Landowner based on its transport links. This misrepresents the position in that whilst the M40 runs effectively through the area, there is no access to it. The main railways station is Warwick Parkway which is some distance from the main part Hatton planned settlement. Hatton station would be difficult to expand given that the site sits amongst existing houses, has a small car park and limited service.
There are already issues with traffic flow along the Birmingham A4177 and this will only increase once the current expansion of the Hatton estate is fully occupied.
The main part of the settlement will run alongside the B4439 which currently feeds onto the A1477. How is this going to be managed as queues already run up to this junction all the way from Stanks roundabout at busy times?
The only two roads which runs north to south are Dark Lane and Station Road. These are both country lanes with passing spaces and will, therefore, both need to be widened to include bridges over the canal, the motorway and the railway.
With an additional 18,000 people and estimated extra 10,000 cars improvements will surely be need to Longbridge Island and Stanks roundabout as these are already at capacity.
The proposal is mostly on green belt land. Whilst I appreciate that central government has changed the parameters in this regard, the fact remains the development will result in the loss of 884 football pitches worth of green belt most of which is currently farmed.
The proposal will also have a direct effect on my own house and environment as the new settlement will come up to the other side of Station Road. This will significantly increase the flow of traffic.
We currently have a range of wildlife in the surrounding area and the development will lead to the loss of habitat. We regularly see numerous species of birds including birds of prey together with rabbits badgers moles foxes muntjac & roe deer, hedgehogs & squirrels.
We will also loose the current view across the field to the canal.
In conclusion, I do appreciate the need for additional housing in South Warwickshire, but I do not think that proper consideration has been given to associated costs of such a significant development. There are more economic options in my view and more emphasis should given to directly addressing the housing problems.
I strongly object to inclusion of option B1 in the SWLP

No

ID sylw: 97565

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Toni Sharp

The plan for B1 goes against Government Guidance on Green Belt Land. To approve this site would go against government guidance. The Green Belt is there for a reason - to separate towns and communities. The plan is heavily structured around everyone using trains but for this to work, Hatton station would need to be significantly redeveloped and we know from recent papers that the railway here is at capacity. Even if it weren't, the cost of the project would be far too high to complete. Essentially, B1 is a bad plan in the wrong place.

No

ID sylw: 97572

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Toni Sharp

The plan for B1 goes against Government Guidance on Green Belt Land. To approve this site would go against government guidance. The Green Belt is there for a reason - to separate towns and communities. The plan is heavily structured around everyone using trains but for this to work, Hatton station would need to be significantly redeveloped and we know from recent papers that the railway here is at capacity. Even if it weren't, the cost of the project would be far too high to complete. Essentially, B1 is a bad plan in the wrong place.

No

ID sylw: 97638

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms susan Bailey

Loss of green belt, which can never be replaced. road network not suitable. utilities would require a serious upgrade to support such a large development. Council should be looking at rezoning town centres to encourage change of use from commercial to residential, to bring life back into the towns. not the easy option of building on greenbelt destroying the landscape and wildlife. We need to be protecting our farm land to produce our food not destroying it.
the council needs to look at other options to solve the housing problem. Affordable retirement villages, students in student accommodation, release housing stock.