No

ID sylw: 89612

Derbyniwyd: 21/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Stella Moore

This is a totally unsuitable site for housing on this scale. The cost involved of upgrading the roads is going to outweigh any benefits. The local roads are rural lanes. The station is small and most people will use cars even if the station is redeveloped. In Kenilworth only a limited number of people use the station which was reopened to facilitate commuting. As the trains will not be frequent, and are not suited to access local schools, this is a red herring. Keep this area with the wonderful open views and develop in other areas.

No

ID sylw: 89626

Derbyniwyd: 21/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Mark Asplin

Unnecessary development of green belt. Thousands more vehicles creating gridlock on the roads and major increase in air pollution. Harming residents health. Swamping the underfunded and already overstretched infrastructure e.g. schools, gp surgeries, utilities etc. Replacing our countryside with a sprawling urban development. Warwick suburbs have done enough already!

No

ID sylw: 89768

Derbyniwyd: 21/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Simon Dodd

I believe that the land at Hatton must be protected as it has many green spaces around and a potential new settlement would destroy the feel of Hatton as a small village as well as greatly expanding the boundaries of the village, which would be detrimental and lead to further unsustainable development. Therefore New Settlement Location B1 should not be considered for inclusion within the South Warwickshire Local Plan.

Yes

ID sylw: 89808

Derbyniwyd: 21/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr SIMON BEACHAM

Hatton has land and scope to expand although Warwick to Balsall Common road will need major infrastructure upgrades. It has a direct link to Leamington and onto London on a regular timetable and a station which is well presented in respect of access for disabled users, parking, etc.

No

ID sylw: 89860

Derbyniwyd: 21/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Miss Claire Whittaker

Having grown up in the area I find it impossible to believe that this can be a suitable site for such a development. The infrastructure is not there to support it, nor is it possible to add in the infrastructure required due to constraints the area of the train station, inability to expand roads which already often get backed up with traffic. There are no plans for additional hospitals and Warwick hospital which would be closest is already in emergency measures. People wont be able to get to work, rare wildlife will be eliminated and farmland lost increasing food insecurity.

No

ID sylw: 90039

Derbyniwyd: 22/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Liam Soutter

The infrastructure (public transport and roads) in the area cannot support (or be expanded to support) a settlement of this size - a location closer to a large town or directly on major transport lines would be more realistic, especially when considering public transport links and cycling routes. I think this is a really important consideration with regard to sustainability and encouraging more use of public transport. The roads are also unable to support large construction vehicles getting to the building site, as all access is via narrow lanes and small bridges.

No

ID sylw: 90100

Derbyniwyd: 22/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Clare Hopkinson

Hatton is not suitable firstly because it is in the Green Belt, the infrastructure is not designed for thousands of new dwellers and it has historic associations which are invaluable to the UK. On the other hand Birmingham has a list of 1,650 brown field sites suitable for development. Birmingham has much better infrastructure, transport and enterprise opportunities. We dont need to create another Birmingham in the Green Belt.
Brownfield_Register_2024_AF.xlsx

Yes

ID sylw: 90109

Derbyniwyd: 22/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Richard Hewitt

Suitable

No

ID sylw: 90158

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Hugh Darwen

I don't agree with using green belt land to make a new town encompassing Hatton village and part of Shrewley, contrary to the very purpose of green belt (prevent urban sprawl). Also, as KHSR have pointed out, it is infeasible to provide the necessary infrastructure: the railway line is at capacity and the station cannot be extended; the local roads already struggle to meet current demands and construction traffic over the years would be a nightmare. We propose sites X1 and X2 as more suitable for a new settlement, having access to motorway plus room for new hospital and schools.

Yes

ID sylw: 90179

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Simon Fox

Large settlement potential. easy access to a46/ M40 corridor and on the main line Birmingham to London providing ample commuting opportunities, either directly from Hatton station or from the frequently served Warwick Parkway. Sufficiently separate from Warwick. Provides opportunity for commercial development separated by A4177 from the new settlement area

No

ID sylw: 90300

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Elisabeth Darwen

My reasons for not including B1 within the plan are that the enormous number of new houses proposed will have a huge, detrimental affect on the area. The railway, roads, schools, medical centre and Warwick Hospital already struggle to cope with existing needs and cannot be expanded to support extra capacity. B1 is within the Green Belt and should not be considered until other more suitable sites have been developed. X1 & X2 appear to fulfil the necessary criteria with good links to the motorway network, access to a station, room for schools and hospital.

No

ID sylw: 90342

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Dr Paul Harrison

The Hatton (B1) proposal contravenes Green Belt protections, disregarding the 2017 Warwick Local Plan Inspector’s rejection of similar development due to harm to openness and coalescence risks. Arup’s Green Belt Review mischaracterizes Leamington’s status, inflating housing needs via unverified cross-boundary targets. Non-Green Belt alternatives (Long Marston, Bearley/Wilmcote) with rail access and 12,762-home capacity are inadequately assessed. Infrastructure plans lack binding commitments, violating NPPF §20. The proposal neglects impacts on Grade 2 farmland and biodiversity (skylarks, ancient hedgerows), failing NPPF §186. Duty-to-Cooperate gaps and overreliance on unviable Green Belt release render the plan undeliverable.

No

ID sylw: 90354

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Miss Julia Gibson

Destruction of green belt and farmland. Insufficient infrastructure. Unacceptable impact on existing rural communities.

No

ID sylw: 90373

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Gillian Spedding

I strongly oppose the proposed housing developments at B1 Hatton due to significant concerns. The development would encroach on green belt land and historic woodland, harming biodiversity and protected species. Existing infrastructure, including rail and roads, cannot support the expected increase in population, leading to gridlock and pollution. Schools, hospitals, and other essential services would be overwhelmed without significant investment. This development would threaten the rural environment, ignore the purposes of green belt land, and ultimately degrade the character of Warwick, making it a place to be avoided.

No

ID sylw: 90383

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Katherine Skudra

i am worried about the loss of agricultural land, and how this ensures and meets sustainability needs
I believe this land is in the Green Belt and do not feel there is the need for this urbanisation of the area
I do not think effective infrastructure can be built to meet the needs of so many houses. The traffic created alone will increase pollution and traffic issues. Railway at Hatton Station cannot pick up all the traffic so people will have to travel by car.
i do not believe the need for so much housing has been proved

No

ID sylw: 90388

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Dr Paul Harrison

- Existing commitments (17,068 homes) and non-Green Belt sites (e.g., SG12 Southam) can meet housing needs, contradicting NPPF §146's "exceptional circumstances" test.
- Arup (2024) misclassifies Leamington Spa, Warwick, and Stratford-upon-Avon as non-"large built-up areas" due to edge locations (§3.3.2), undermining urban regeneration (NPPF §143(d)).
- Grade 2/3a BMV land at Hatton threatens food security, contravening NPPF §181.
- Hatton Station’s limited transport (2 trains/hour) fails NPPF §115’s accessibility requirements.
- No SWMP for Flood Zone 2/3 land breaches NPPF §167.
- Costs exceed LHA caps, breaching NPPF §65.
- 6-week period violates NPPF §41’s "meaningful engagement".

Yes

ID sylw: 90527

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Avril Fox

Hatton has a station on the main line with services directly to Birmingham ,Oxford and London.Also the Station is very close to Warwick ParkwayStation. In my opinion Hatton is far away enough from Warwick to be seen as a stand alone new settlement

No

ID sylw: 90531

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Neal Soutter

I feel strongly that we should not have such large developments in the Green Belt. This will bring Birmingham one large step closer to merging with Warwick/Leamington. The Green Belt was created to stop this happening and there are far more appropriate sites like X1 and X2 that can be used to avoid this.

No

ID sylw: 90536

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Ian Bothamley

Objection based on;
Destruction of Greenbelt
Destructions of rich Farmland
Other site available not in greenbelt i.e. X1, X2 & G1
Road congestion already exists an extra circa 20k cars would devastate the roads and impact local economy negatively
Overstretched existing Hospitals
Detrimental effect on local wildlife and protected species and conservation areas
Unsuitable rail links for housing type proposed

No

ID sylw: 90636

Derbyniwyd: 24/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Alice Smith

would need to replace 5 bridges (canal and railway) to be dual width to enable two-way traffic and upgrade all the drainage for both surface water and severn trent sewerage all the way back to Warwick as current severn trent services are insufficient. There is currently no mains gas to the area so that would need to be installed as biomass, LPG and Oil are expensive to run when 'off grid', The train station has very few trains stopping and to increase services would cost a fortune. B1 is not a suitable site for housing

No

ID sylw: 90658

Derbyniwyd: 02/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Jennifer Bradley

Increased Traffic
Concerns: The development of Site B1 is likely to exacerbate traffic congestion in the area. According to the
Final SA Appendices Regulation 18, all Strategic Growth
Locations (SGLs) are expected to increase traffic and associated air pollution. This could worsen air quality and lead to longer commute times, impacting the quality of life for current residents. Lack of Amenities: The proposed development does not adequately address the need for essential amenities. The Final SA Appendices Regulation 18 highlights that the scale of development will place increased demand on existing local services, potentially limiting accessibility for both current and future residents. Without sufficient investment in new local shops, healthcare facilities, and public transport, the development could lead to a decline in the quality of life. Overcrowding: The addition of new homes in Site B1 could lead to overcrowding, putting further strain on already stretched local resources. The document mentions that new settlements are expected to have a major positive impact on housing provision, but this must be balanced with the capacity of local infrastructure to support the increased population. Alternative Use - Hospital Expansion: Given the current strain on healthcare facilities, a more beneficial use of the land would be to expand healthcare services. The Final SA Appendices Regulation 18 notes that many new settlements are located outside the sustainable distance to an NHS Hospital with A&E services. Expanding the hospital facilities on Site B1 could alleviate pressure on existing healthcare services and improve access to emergency healthcare for the community.
Quality of life for all in this area will drastically decline and access to healthcare, education, and ease of transportation between commuter towns will suddenly become much worse.
less

No

ID sylw: 90661

Derbyniwyd: 24/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Ken Simons

Loss of :-
Green Belt
Productive Agricultural Land
Ancient Landscape and Wildlife Habitat
Significant amenity degradation
Increased traffic on already congested main and constrained rural roads
High risk rural roads with no pedestrian infrastructure
Isolation of New settlement due to infrastructure constraints
No proven local need
Lack of rail capacity
Risk of Flooding

Yes

ID sylw: 90705

Derbyniwyd: 24/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Averil Stewart

unused station nearby that can be brought into use

Yes

ID sylw: 90733

Derbyniwyd: 24/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr James Edge

Good road/rail infrastructure.

No

ID sylw: 90770

Derbyniwyd: 20/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Abi Marks

I strongly object to the South Warwickshire Local Plan and the proposed Hatton New Settlement, which aims to develop over 640 acres of green belt land for 4,500 houses. This would destroy vital trees, wildlife, and farmland, negatively impacting local communities. The existing transport infrastructure is already overloaded, and further development would exacerbate traffic issues, particularly affecting schools. Additionally, Warwick Hospital is under severe strain, and adding thousands of new residents could overwhelm its services. I urge the Council to reconsider this proposal, as it primarily benefits a wealthy family rather than the community.

No

ID sylw: 90771

Derbyniwyd: 24/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Angela Pitt

I formally object to the inclusion of Land at Hatton as a Strategic Growth Area in the South Warwickshire Local Plan. My objections are based on several grounds, including significant threats to local biodiversity, increased traffic congestion due to insufficient public transport, inadequate infrastructure to support new homes, potential flood risks, and negative impacts on nearby cultural heritage sites. The development could lead to a decline in local wildlife, strain essential services, and compromise the area's historical value, all of which contradict sustainable development objectives.

No

ID sylw: 90772

Derbyniwyd: 28/01/2025

Ymatebydd: Mike Johnson

In relation to the housing development proposed for the Hatton area I would like to add my voice to those opposed to these plans.
I am a Hatton resident for 24 years.
I won't repeat the overcrowding and massive overburden in infrastructure which will be made by many others!
However as a keen naturalist I would just like to add:
In these proposed areas there is one region which is used by overwintering golden plovers each winter. It's the only such habitat that I know of in south Warwickshire. Though a green listed species overall.
In addition there are several fields occasionally harbouring wintering lapwings (red list species) which would be affected.
Many thanks for reading this. I do realize that you receive countless mail from others!

No

ID sylw: 90778

Derbyniwyd: 01/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Jonathon Smith

As a resident of Hatton Park, I strongly object to the proposed development on site ID 692, known as Hatton Hill. This development threatens to disrupt cherished public rights of way and walking paths that are vital for recreation and community health. It would also significantly alter the natural landscape, compromising scenic views and tranquility. Access to green spaces is crucial for residents' well-being, and the development contradicts sustainable living principles by reducing walking routes. I urge the planning committee to reconsider, as preserving these paths is essential for our community's character and quality of life.

Other

ID sylw: 90990

Derbyniwyd: 25/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Canal & River Trust

The Canal & River Trust asks that any proposed allocation of Site B1 considers the canal and takes account of its proximity and the potential impact that development could have on its character, setting, physical infrastructure, heritage significance and biodiversity value. We welcome the opportunity for further discussion if you intend to proceed with the allocation of this site.

Yes

ID sylw: 91060

Derbyniwyd: 25/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Julian Brown

Agree given significant development already and proximity to SG07 and road and rail infrastructure