No

ID sylw: 105587

Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Clive Parpworth

I formally object to the proposed development of site B1 in Warwick due to its potential to alter the rural character of Hatton Park, disrupt local bridleways and footpaths, and harm wildlife habitats. The development threatens vital outdoor spaces and would increase light and noise pollution, negatively impacting wildlife. Furthermore, local infrastructure is inadequate for such a large project, exacerbating congestion and straining public services. I believe the site is unsustainable, and I urge the council to reject this application in favour of preserving the area's character and biodiversity.

No

ID sylw: 105588

Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Helene Parpworth

I formally object to the proposed development of site B1 in Warwick due to serious concerns about its impact on the rural character of Hatton Park, local wildlife, and community bridleways. This development would significantly alter the landscape, eroding the area's unique semi-rural appeal and harming biodiversity. Increased human activity would disrupt local wildlife, and the existing network of bridleways would be compromised, affecting outdoor recreation. Additionally, I worry about the strain on infrastructure and public services. I urge the council to reject this development and prioritise sustainable options that protect our environment.

No

ID sylw: 105592

Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Tae Kyung Park

I formally object to the inclusion of the Strategic Growth Area at Land at Hatton in the South Warwickshire Local Plan. As a resident of Hatton Park, I oppose the proposed development on site 166 and surrounding areas due to concerns about infrastructure collapse, a traffic nightmare, and irreversible environmental damage. Our infrastructure is already overstretched, with no new schools or healthcare facilities, and traffic congestion is severe. Furthermore, the proposed site is ecologically vital, and its destruction would be an irreversible loss. I request that planners and councillors refuse this proposal.

No

ID sylw: 105593

Derbyniwyd: 27/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Helen Jones

I object to the proposed development of over 8,000 homes on site B1 in the South Warwickshire Local Plan. This site lies within the Green Belt, threatening local communities and wildlife. The development will lead to significant loss of natural habitats, increased flood risk, and overwhelming traffic congestion on already busy roads. Local schools and healthcare facilities are unprepared for the influx of residents, and public transport options are inadequate. I urge the planning committee to reconsider this allocation and explore alternative sites with better infrastructure and less environmental impact.

Yes

ID sylw: 105615

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Cllr Eileen Edwards

B1 – Land at Hatton – SUPPORT - capacity 8156 homes: proposed new settlement has excellent rail and road connections to Warwick, Leamington Spa, Coventry and Birmingham with easy access to the A46 and M40

No

ID sylw: 105637

Derbyniwyd: 28/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Gayle Hartrick

I believe the proposed developments will be disastrous for the areas involved, as the infrastructure cannot handle the expected surge in population, leading to traffic, pollution, and congestion issues. Local services like doctors and schools will struggle, and many areas lack mains sewerage. I suggest a dispersed housing scheme, allowing smaller builders to construct around 50 homes each, which would benefit the community and buyers. This approach would provide time to enhance services and infrastructure without overwhelming the area. I urge you to reconsider these proposals.

Yes

ID sylw: 105670

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Edward Heynes

If substantial growth is to occur in Stratford, it should occur on the northern side due to better access to Stratford Parkway station, the strategic highway network, and existing employment. A relief road must be positioned on the southern side, linking the A34 with the A46, but proposals around the eastern side are not feasible. Additionally, growth should focus on new settlements near public transport interchanges, including railway stations and access to Birmingham Airport. Options around X1, X2, SG09, 10, 11, G1, SG13, 14, and B1 appear to be the most sensible.

No

ID sylw: 105723

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: - G Kelsall

I formally object to the proposed development on Site B1 in the South Warwickshire Local Plan due to several concerns. Firstly, it would undermine the Green Belt, essential for preventing urban sprawl and supporting community well-being. Secondly, local biodiversity would be adversely affected, threatening various species in the area. Additionally, the development would strain already overloaded infrastructure, including roads and schools. It lacks sustainability as it is not close to essential services, increasing reliance on cars. Finally, the scale of the development could disrupt the community's character and identity. I urge the planning committee to reconsider.

No

ID sylw: 105742

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Penelope Ostins

I strongly object to the proposed housing developments in Hatton, Lapworth, and Rowington. Recent houses in Hatton are unsold, raising questions about the need for more. Building on green belt land threatens wildlife habitats and valuable farmland, impacting food production and increasing import reliance. Local roads are already congested and dangerous, with limited public transport and healthcare facilities. The primary school is at capacity, and our doctors' surgery cannot expand. I believe there are numerous vacant properties that could be reused instead. We must protect our green belt land.

No

ID sylw: 105789

Derbyniwyd: 03/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Dianne Tillotson

I strongly object to the development of land at Hatton due to the excessive traffic and destruction of green areas. We are being encouraged to go green to protect the planet, yet this proposal involves removing trees and fields and replacing them with concrete. Additionally, I believe there is no need for more houses in this area, especially since the last houses built at Hatton Park remain unsold. I urge that we stop further destruction of our environment.

No

ID sylw: 105797

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: 105802

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 willquickly become our hospital shortcomings.

No

ID sylw: 105817

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Tom Willans

This objection is to the Hatton B1 housing proposal because: the Hatton station is unable to fulfil the function expected of a new settlement, the infrastructure to support the new settlement is not there; the greenbelt is high quality and exceptional grounds building on this when their non-greenbelt land available; there is serious damage to the amenities supporting the wider population e.g. conservation areas and networks of bridleways cycleways across Warwickshire and potentially the with the West Midlands more widely. The development will have a detrimental impact on the local wildlife and its habitats.

No

ID sylw: 105821

Derbyniwyd: 01/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Julie Harrison

I am writing to provide my objection and views on the Hatton and Hatton park development proposals. As a longstanding resident of Hatton Park are multiple reasons why this massive would destroy the area .
1. There is no local infrastructure to support such a mammoth development. The a4177 is already gridlocked with many accidents and the surrounding roads are tiny countryside lanes where cars can hardly pass and all are prone to flooding.
The cost of road improvements on Stanks island, Longbridge and all the surrounding roads would have massive impact on traffic congestion, and a huge cost to the tax payer. There also weekly major accidents in this area due to the sheer volume of cars travelling to Warwick and leamington when there are no other alternative routes available.
2 . There are absolutely no local facilities, doctors, schools, shop, leisure
and the local hospital is already overwhelmed by numbers and had a critical incident recently due to the massive influx of residents. There may be plans to build all these but that is long term and in the meantime there are no facilities available for anyone extra moving into the area and the ones already here would not
be able to access medical care or facilities for everyday living.
3 . This would totally destroy the agricultural land which surrounds all this area leading to a lack of food production and green belt for the environment and leisure .It would also destroy wildlife habitat . There are other non green belt areas and brown field site which should be prioritised above destroying farm land and wildlife.
It is astonishing that tjis development is progressing so quickly with little regard to these objections and such a short time frame in which to respond

No

ID sylw: 105827

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: 105836

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Peter Bailey

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Hatton development project due to the severe environmental, infrastructural, and social concerns it raises. The proposed development threatens the long-term sustainability of the area and would have a detrimental impact on existing communities, services, and local heritage.
1. Loss of Agricultural Land and Environmental Impact
The proposed development would result in the permanent loss of valuable agricultural land, which plays a crucial role in local food production and contributes to food security. Removing this land will increase reliance on imported food, leading to higher carbon emissions from transportation, undermining sustainability goals. Furthermore, this land provides essential natural habitats, and its loss would negatively impact biodiversity in the region.
2. Encroachment on Green Belt and Impact on Historic Warwick
This development encroaches on the Green Belt, which serves as a vital buffer separating historic Warwick from the expanding West Midlands conurbation. The erosion of this buffer would diminish the unique character of Warwick and harm the town’s historical significance.
Beyond aesthetics and heritage, there are concerns about the social cohesion of communities. Large-scale developments without proper investment in community-building initiatives can lead to social fragmentation and increased anti-social behavior. A clear example of this can be seen in the London Legacy Development post-Olympics, where significant investment in social infrastructure was required to establish a cohesive community. Without similar measures, the influx of new residents into Hatton could lead to long-term challenges related to crime, social unrest, and lack of respect for the local environment.
3. Insufficient Local Infrastructure
Hatton’s infrastructure is not equipped to support a development of this scale. There are major concerns regarding:
• Water, Drainage, and Flooding: The current systems may not be able to cope with the increased demand, increasing the risk of flooding and water shortages.
• Power Supply: The local power grid may require substantial upgrades, leading to potential disruptions and increased costs for existing residents.
Without significant and immediate investment in infrastructure, this development will place an unsustainable burden on local resources.
4. Strain on Healthcare Services
While plans may include additional GP surgeries, there is no clear strategy for expanding hospital services or other critical healthcare infrastructure to accommodate the growing population. Having worked within the NHS ecosystem, I am aware that the current proposal lacks a rigorous understanding of healthcare provision. Consideration must be given not just to hospitals but also to dental surgeries, care homes, urgent access centers, and other private medical facilities. These services are already under pressure, and a sudden increase in population without proportional investment will negatively impact healthcare access and quality.
5. Questionable Connectivity and Transportation
The development’s proximity to Hatton Station has been cited as a benefit, but this is misleading due to the following:
• Limited Train Services: Hatton Station currently has infrequent and inadequate services that would not support a larger population. Many residents already choose to commute from Warwick Parkway due to Hatton Station’s limited parking and irregular schedules. Warwick Parkway itself struggles with parking availability, and there are no proposals to address this.
• Inadequate Road Network: The road network is already under strain, and increased traffic will lead to congestion and safety issues. Even a small development in Hatton Park recently required nearly nine months of roadworks for access, highlighting how unprepared local infrastructure is for expansion. Additionally, access to Warwick for recreational and cultural activities is already challenging due to road congestion.
The lack of sufficient public transport links and road infrastructure makes this development fundamentally unsustainable.
6. Ecological and Environmental Concerns
The proposed development will significantly impact the local environment, including:
• Loss of Countryside and Natural Habitats: This area is home to various species, and construction will lead to a decline in biodiversity.
• Increased Pollution: More housing will contribute to increased waste, air pollution, and light pollution, all of which will reduce the quality of life for residents and negatively affect wildlife.
7. Loss of Recreational Rural Amenities
Hatton provides valuable recreational spaces that contribute to residents' well-being. The loss of green spaces will diminish opportunities for outdoor activities, while an influx of new residents will place additional strain on existing leisure facilities in Warwick, such as children’s activity groups, sports clubs, and community centers. Access to children’s activities is already limited, and increased demand will worsen the situation, leading to potential long-term societal challenges such as rising obesity rates and a decline in community engagement.
Conclusion
The Hatton development proposal presents serious challenges that outweigh any potential benefits. Without robust infrastructure, transport links, healthcare provisions, and community planning, this development will lead to long-term social and environmental damage. I urge the planning committee to reject this application in its current form to preserve the character, sustainability, and quality of life in Hatton and its surrounding areas.
Thank you for considering my objection.

No

ID sylw: 105840

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Karen Bartlett

Buildings - commercial & residential around Hatton & Hoth

I write to object to the above development. I’ve tried to do so online, but it’s impossible to easily work out how to comment.

There doesn’t appear to be any regard to local infrastructure. The hospital can’t cope as it is. Our local drs is tiny but brilliant & works really well for the community. Adding 8000 more houses will hurt it unless Hatton is getting its own. It’s already insane travelling for work. This is just going to make it worse. Hampton Magna has suffered from water issues (leaks, no water to half the village at points) which are stressed because of the new developments in the village already. We also have a lot of electricity black outs, broadband issues again because of the work to the new developments. Additionally, the first year after the developments were finished the new areas flooded, due to lack of fields. Crime has also increased.

We are already full of cars from commuters. We can’t cope with more. The village needs improvement not more strain.

No

ID sylw: 105873

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Jane Wheelan

I object this area being included due to loss of prime agricultural land and green belt. There is not adequate infrastructure in terms of schools, hospitals, GP surgeries etc. in place to support the proposed developments. The developments will lead to increased traffic which will lead to more pollution. The train station at Hatton will not be able to cater for the people who want to commute to work. New residents will not be able to secure school places and the pollution and noise will be detrimental to people's health and wellbeing. There are insufficient public services to support these proposals and the resultant demand on drainage, electricity and water supplies.

No

ID sylw: 105874

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Laura Court

Rowington village should remain as a village. The infrastructure in terms of hospitals, schools, doctors surgeries and roads will not be able to cope.

No

ID sylw: 105898

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Valerie Rooke

I would like to register my strong objection to the proposed building of 8000 + houses

No

ID sylw: 105935

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: 105941

Derbyniwyd: 14/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs. Emma Smith

- The proposed development is situated on Green Belt land, which serves as a buffer against urban sprawl. The release of this land for development contradicts the principles of preserving natural landscapes & maintaining the character of rural communities. Exceptional circumstances haven't been demonstrated.
- The addition of 6,000 homes will place a burden on existing infrastructure. The current road networks, public transport & local amenities aren't equipped to handle such a significant increase in population.
- The development poses a threat to local biodiversity & the natural environment. The area is home to various species of flora & fauna that could be adversely affected by construction.
- There is a strong sentiment among local residents against this development. Community consultations have highlighted widespread opposition.
- The proposed site doesn't align with sustainable development goals. It's not in close proximity to essential services and facilities, which would necessitate increased car usage.

No

ID sylw: 105945

Derbyniwyd: 15/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Frances Blakeman

I wish to object to the development of Hatton which I believe is B1.
My reasons are as follows.
1. Lack of infrastructure of roads to support the extra traffic.
2.Unneighbourly.
3.Destruction of green belt
4. Harmful to wildlife
5. Lack of hospital beds
Please take these points in consideration , when making a decision , where some land owners are happy to financially benefit from a Goverment incentive .

No

ID sylw: 105948

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Gerardo Montoya

I strongly oppose the proposed developments in B1 for several reasons. First, the area around the Hatton Arms Pub, where I live, was designated as protected, preventing me from extending my home—rules that should apply universally. Second, local infrastructure is inadequate; the Birmingham Road is already congested, worsened by previous developments. Warwick’s narrow, historic streets cannot handle additional traffic. Third, the environmental impact is severe, with threats to wildlife and the green belt. Lastly, essential services like water, power, and schools are already strained, and further expansion will cause significant disruption and potential system failure.

No

ID sylw: 106041

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Alex Johnson

I strongly object to the inclusion of Site 160 (land off Hockley Road, Hatton Green, CV35 7LA) which is part of the B1 category of the SWLP.

This plan will create a highly undesirable urban sprawl, have a significant environmental impact, is unsuitable for development for several reasons and is in conflict with established planning principles:

Urban Sprawl / Green Belt Integrity
The development of Site 160 connects disparate areas and undermines the Green Belt's purpose. It would contravene the Green Belt’s fundamental
aim to prevent unrestricted urban growth and safeguard the countryside.

Environmental Concerns & Priority 3 Land
There is ancient woodland on Site 160 and I am particularly concerned about the impact on that. Ancient woodlands are habitats that cannot be replaced once lost andthat support biodiversity and numerous ecosystems. Building around these areas causes damage that can't be reversed and is in conflict with national and local planning policies prioritising their protection. Moreover, this site is designated as Priority 3 land, which indicates it's not suitable for development and further reinforces the argument against its inclusion in the Local Plan.

Mineral Safeguarding / Flood Risk
The HELAA assessment indicates that 81% of Site 160 falls within a Mineral Safeguarding Area, which raises serious concerns about potential conflicts between development and mineral extraction, as well as the potential for land instability and contamination. The site's proximity to Flood Zone 2 and 3 and its susceptibility to surface water flooding also pose significant
risks to future residents and infrastructure

Inconsistent Site Categorisation
The inclusion of Site 160 in the B1 category is inconsistent with the HELAA findings, as the site's numerous constraints - including being located within a Mineral Safeguarding Area and susceptibility to flooding - suggest that it is not suitable for development. Therefore it is hard not to wonder whether the selection process of the site been transparent and objective.

Conflict with Sustainable Development Principles
Finally, the development of Site 160 would be inconsistent with sustainable development principles. Building here would harm the environment and fail to promote a sense of place and community. Please reconsider the inclusion of Site 160 in the B1 category prioritize the protection of our Green Belt, ancient woodlands, and the principles of sustainable development.

No

ID sylw: 106042

Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mike Chubb

Government is targeting mainly Green Belt land and in doing so is ignoring the fact that throughout the UK at the present moment there are:

1.5 million derelict properties that could be renovated;

1 million unbuilt houses that have already received planning permission but have yet to be built;

Brownfield sites that could accommodate 1.2 million homes;

165,000 empty commercial properties.
[redacted]

My second objection is that the people who have chosen to live in the countryside and who, by doing so, have a vision of bringing up a family surrounded by green fields and waterways will have that vision ripped away from them by having new homes built, unnecessarily, on that green land with all the heartache that comes with it.

And thirdly, what about the infrastructure? Has that been thought about sufficiently? New roads; new schools; new shops; new health centres but no new hospitals. The nearest hospital is Warwick hospital which is already overstretched.

8,000 new homes equals probably 24,000 more people and probably up to 16,000 more cars, so the tranquil country living which the existing home owners have opted for will be swept away with extra noise and, let’s face it, more crime – will there be a new police station and a sharp increase in policing this new area to cope with 24,000 more people?

I very much doubt it.

No

ID sylw: 106049

Derbyniwyd: 19/02/2025

Ymatebydd: John Townsend

I would strongly object to the planning application for 8000 houses between Hatton and Wroxall where there is a beautiful Abbey. I have lived in Chadwick End for over 45 years in untouched countryside and to build 8000 houses along that stretch of the Warwick road would completely ruin the area of countryside going back to the small village of Shrewley, Lapworth and several other villages in that area.
It would completely destroy the area and they are all country roads except the Warwick and are not capable of handling that amount of traffic. Please think about the residents that have been living here for many years.

No

ID sylw: 106050

Derbyniwyd: 19/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Suzanne Townsend

As a resident on the border of Lapworth and Hatton, I commute along the Warwick Road to Warwick daily and use the many lovely country lanes , cycling and horse riding. I strongly object to the building of so many houses in this area as there isn’t a chance the roads and amenities could cope with the extra traffic schooling and doctors.

No

ID sylw: 106093

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Joy Doyle

Safety Concerns – A Disaster Waiting to Happen
Station Lane is already overwhelmed. Parents like myself fear for my children’s safety as cars mount pavements to navigate the congested roads. This area cannot cope with more traffic – it is already jam-packed, and additional cars will only increase the risk of serious accidents. The lives of residents, especially young children, are being put in jeopardy by this proposals.

The railway station car park is nearly full every single day, leaving no available spaces for additional vehicles. The inevitable overspill onto nearby roads will cause chaos, creating further congestion and unsafe conditions for pedestrians and cyclists alike.

Failing Infrastructure – An Already Strained System
Our local infrastructure is not fit for purpose as it stands. Every time a storm hits, we brace ourselves for yet another power cut. This is not an occasional inconvenience—it is a frequent and frustrating occurrence. The current system is struggling, and adding further demand will only exacerbate the problem, making daily life more difficult for residents.

Lapworth and Kingswood also suffer from regular flooding, turning streets into rivers and sometime hazardous, foul-smelling areas when drains become overloaded. More development will mean more pollution, more flooding, and more raw sewage spilling into our streets. It’s also hazardous in the winter. Icy streets, regular accidents as nothing gets gritted. This is our safety that’s at risk.

Environmental Destruction – A Loss We Cannot Undo
The proposed development will devastate our local wildlife. The area around Baddesley Clinton is home to a rich ecosystem, including roaming deer, birds of prey, and countless other species. Building on the green belt here would be nothing short of an ecological disaster, wiping out biodiversity that has existed for generations.

Additionally, Kingswood Canal Basin, the Harborough Banks Iron Age Hill Fort, and the historic priest tunnel connecting Baddesley Clinton to the Manor House are all part of our region’s heritage. The canal is legally protected under the Warwick District Canal Conservation Area (Civic Amenities Act of 1967)—how can we justify putting this history at risk for the sake of development?

Inadequate Transport and Public Services
Lapworth and Kingswood already lack the transport links to support a growing population. There is no regular bus service, and the railway station is primarily freight-focused, offering infrequent passenger trains. The station itself has minimal parking and no step-free access for northbound passengers, making it inaccessible for many.

Our roads are another major concern. Narrow, winding, and poorly lit, they were never designed to handle high volumes of traffic. The low railway and canal bridges further complicate matters, creating bottlenecks that cannot accommodate additional vehicles.

Beyond transport, our local services are already stretched to their limits.

Lapworth Primary School is nearly at full capacity—where will the children from these new homes go to school? It is already a feeder school with children from many surrounding villages attending.
Lapworth Surgery is already struggling to meet demand—how can it possibly accommodate even more patients? Two weeks for an appointment is regular at least. It’s already stretched to its limit.
Limited local employment means more people will need to commute, adding even more strain to the roads and rail services.
The Reality – An Unsustainable Future
Lapworth does not have a mains gas supply, leaving households reliant on oil, electricity, or bottled gas. The proposed new development would be required to install air-source heat pumps, which will place even greater demand on an already overstretched electricity grid. With already regular and constant power cuts. We are constantly being told our water and electricity supply needs upgrading to meet existing needs—how can we realistically provide for additional homes without major, costly infrastructure overhauls.

This development is not just ill-conceived—it is completely unsustainable. It threatens our safety and our environment. We urge you to reconsider the irreversible damage these proposals would cause and reject it outright. Our community simply cannot afford to bear the cost.

No

ID sylw: 106116

Derbyniwyd: 06/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Jane Green

Nifer y bobl: 2

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.