No

ID sylw: 107456

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Karen Lowe

Having taken time to look at the proposed developments for housing in Area C1. I would like my following objections to be submitted:

1.     There is not the infrastructure in this area to support this level this level of additional housing.

2.    There are only Infant and Junior Schools and those are already at capacity. There are no Senior Schools in the area the nearest being Henley in Arden or Warwick both a substantial journey from Area C1.

3.    Bus service provision is virtually is virtually non-existent and cannot provide public transport for Work or for school children.

4.    Lapworth Railway station has only 11 parking spaces and no available land to expand. It is understood the actual rail line is currently at full capacity and no additional track or rolling stock can be accommodated.

5.    Health care facilities at local Doctor's Surgeries will be unable to accommodate the patients this additional housing would require.

6.    The Old Warwick Road in many areas has no footpaths for adults or school children to use. This is the main access route through the area in question.

I have lived in the area since 1991 and therefore am well acquainted with the items listed above.

No

ID sylw: 107604

Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Leya Bushell

While sustainable growth is important, large-scale developments in rural locations often bring significant and lasting challenges that must be carefully considered before approval. These concerns include:
1. Strain on Local Infrastructure – Rural roads, public transport, healthcare services, and schools are not designed to accommodate sudden, large increases in population and traffic. Large-scale developments often lead to excessive congestion, road degradation, and increased pressure on emergency services.
2. Environmental Impact –the Land south of kingswood serves as important green spaces, agricultural land, and wildlife habitats. Large developments can lead to habitat destruction, loss of biodiversity, increased flooding risks due to surface runoff, and excessive strain on local water and sewage systems.
3. Loss of Rural Character & Community Displacement – the surrounding villages have a distinct character that large-scale developments will erode. A surge in transient populations from a development of this (C1) can disrupt established communities and diminish the local identity that residents deeply value.
4. Sustainability & Climate Considerations –This development will have to rely on private car use due to inadequate public transport links, leading to increased emissions and sustainability concerns. Instead, smaller, well-integrated developments would align better with the UK’s environmental and carbon-reduction strategy.

No

ID sylw: 107679

Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Shakespeare Line Rail User Group

C1 Land south of Kingswood Not Suitable

No

ID sylw: 107719

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr marty gallagher

I am writing as a local resident to strongly object to the inclusion of the above site by Norton developments on Station Lane/rising Lane, Lapworth.
The proposed inclusion is an unnecessary and inappropriate to extend development beyond the build up limits of the village into what is currently attractive open countryside.
Furthermore, such a large-scale housing development will generate extra traffic on unsuitably designed roads.
Also, in terms of visual amenity, I believe this large-scale housing development will be harmful to the local countryside.
Development of this scale would damage the rural nature, character and attractive qualities of the historic village and surroundings.
This is a poorly conceived location for a development of an unsuitable site in an unsustainable location and therefore should be refused.
For all of the above reasons, I would urge the council to refuse the inclusion of this site in the SWLP.

No

ID sylw: 107772

Derbyniwyd: 21/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Celia White

Area has no major road infrastructure and also infringes upon Baddesley Clinton ,
Major Charity events are held here and future development will remove all footpaths and
Bridleways from proposed site.
Local roads and lanes would be completely overwhelmed.
Also with all these developments we never here of and Doctors Surgeries and Dentists they just plonk a load of housing in and let everyone get on with it.

No

ID sylw: 107776

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Laura Dryhrust

Lapworth and Rowington are historic villages known for their rural charm and unspoilt landscapes. The proposed development of 7,000 new dwellings will drastically alter the character of the area by leading to:
The loss of valuable green belt, agricultural land, and National Trust estate areas.
An unsustainable population increase of over 1.5 times the existing residents.
Increased light and noise pollution, disrupting both wildlife and the peaceful environment for residents.
Loss of Enjoyment of Countryside

This development will severely impact public rights of way, open views, and historic sites such as Baddesley Clinton. Increased footfall on country walks and canalside paths will lead to overcrowding, littering, and the loss of tranquillity.

Housing Need & Site Suitability
The fact that no land was put forward during the ‘Call for Sites’ demonstrates the inappropriateness of this proposal. Additionally, the New Settlements Assessment 2024 raises concerns about the feasibility of delivering a development of this scale.

Misalignment with Local Planning Policies
The proposal contradicts the South Warwickshire Local Plan’s objective of preserving village character while ensuring sustainable development. A development of this scale is incompatible with the area’s needs and planning guidelines.

Lack of Employment OpportunitiesLapworth and Rowington have poor connectivity, making them unsuitable for strategic employment. This would result in a commuter village, worsening traffic congestion and pollution rather than advancing local job growth.

Strained Infrastructure & Services
The existing infrastructure and services are already under pressure and cannot accommodate such a large increase in population.

Traffic & Transport Issues – B4102 and B4439
The proposed development will significantly increase congestion on local roads, particularly the B4102 and B4439, which are already unsuitable for heavy traffic. Many roads in the area are single-track, unlit, and have height and weight restrictions on bridges, making them inadequate for large-scale development.

Environmental Sustainability
This development threatens the area’s biodiversity, green belt, and historic sites.

No

ID sylw: 107806

Derbyniwyd: 28/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Maureen Graham

I am writing to formally object to the proposed C1 development located south of Kingswood, as outlined in the South Warwickshire Local Plan. My concerns are based on several planning considerations recognized by Warwickshire County Council:

1. Impact on Highway Safety and Traffic Issues: The introduction of approximately 4,960 new dwellings in this area is projected to significantly increase local traffic. The existing road infrastructure may not be equipped to handle this surge, potentially leading to congestion and heightened safety risks for both drivers and pedestrians on the country roads.

2. Effect on the Design and Appearance of the Area: The proposed development could substantially alter the character of Kingswood and its surroundings. The transition from rural landscapes to a densely populated settlement may undermine the area’s aesthetic and historical value where many local properties have grade 2 listing.

3. Strain on Local Infrastructure and Services: An influx of nearly 11,900 residents would place considerable pressure on existing amenities, including schools, healthcare facilities, and recreational areas. Without a robust plan to expand and enhance these services, the quality of life for both current and future residents could be adversely affected.

4. Environmental Concerns: The development poses potential risks to local wildlife habitats and will lead to the loss of green spaces that are vital for ecological balance and community well-being.

I urge the council to thoroughly assess these issues, ensuring that any development aligns with sustainable growth principles and genuinely benefits the community.

No

ID sylw: 107808

Derbyniwyd: 28/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Jenny Op

I am writing to strongly object to the proposed C1 development south of Kingswood and the Hatton development, both of which represent an irresponsible and unsustainable expansion that will cause significant harm to our community, infrastructure, and environment.

1. Unacceptable Strain on Infrastructure and Public Services
The sheer scale of these developments—thousands of new homes—will place an unsustainable burden on local services, including healthcare, education, and emergency services. Local GP surgeries and hospitals are already struggling, and there is no clear plan to ensure essential services can cope with the influx of thousands of new residents. Schools in the area are at capacity, and expanding them is not a simple fix.

2. Traffic Chaos and Road Safety Risks
Warwickshire County Council has clear guidelines on ensuring safe and efficient transport, but these proposals completely ignore the reality of local road networks. The A4177, A4189, and surrounding rural roads are already congested and dangerous. Increased traffic will severely impact road safety, increase pollution, and lead to gridlock at peak times. The council has a duty to ensure developments do not compromise the safety and well-being of current residents—this development fails that test outright.

3. Environmental Destruction & Loss of Green Space
Both developments would result in the destruction of precious green spaces, displacing wildlife, increasing flood risks, and contributing to the overall loss of Warwickshire’s rural character. The council’s own policies emphasize the importance of preserving biodiversity and protecting local ecosystems, yet these proposals contradict those principles.

4. The Developments are Unnecessary & Unwanted
There is no justification for this level of expansion in these areas. Warwickshire has already seen rapid housing growth, much of which remains unsold or unaffordable to local people. This reckless overdevelopment serves developers’ interests, not the needs of the community.

I urge Warwickshire County Council to reject these damaging proposals and instead focus on sustainable development that prioritizes existing communities, infrastructure, and the environment. Approving these plans would be a gross failure of leadership and responsibility.

I completely agree that more houses are needed. Surely allowing smaller scale house builds dispersed between current established villages and settlements would be more responsible and sustainable for all of the above objections?

No

ID sylw: 107965

Derbyniwyd: 02/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Sally Robinson

While proximity to the station may offer some potential benefits for the development of land at Station Lane and land East of Station Lane, these benefits are outweighed by other factors, including:
• The likely increase in car-based travel, leading to highway safety concerns on
local roads;
• The lack of local services and employment, increasing the need for travel;
• The limited capacity of the primary school;
• The scale of development and its impact on the rural character of the village;
• The loss of local amenities and informal recreational opportunities;
• The damage to the rural ambiance of the canal corridor;
• The risks associated with climate change, increased rainfall, and flooding.
• The permanent loss of wildlife habitat and disruption to important wildlife
corridors.
Based on this analysis, it is recommended that: a. Kingswood should not be considered a suitable location for large-scale housing development, such as proposed for the land East of Station Lane, as well as the land at Station Lane.

There are no ‘exceptional circumstances’ to justify removing these sites from the Green Belt.

There is no justification for altering the Built-Up Area Boundary of Kingswood to accommodate further housing development, either now or in the future.

No

ID sylw: 108033

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Karen Lowe

I would like my following objections to be submitted:
1. There is not the infrastructure in this area to support this level this level of additional housing.
2.There are only Infant and Junior Schools and those are already at capacity. There are no Senior Schools in the area the nearest being Henley in Arden or Warwick both a substantial journey from Area C1.
3. Bus service provision is virtually is virtually non-existent and cannot provide public transport for Work or for school children.
4.Lapworth Railway station has only 11 parking spaces and no available land to expand. It is understood the actual rail line is currently at full capacity and no additional track or rolling stock can be accommodated.
5.Health care facilities at local Doctor's Surgeries will be unable to accommodate the patients this additional housing would require.
6.The Old Warwick Road in many areas has no footpaths for adults or school children to use. This is the main access route through the area in question.

No

ID sylw: 108043

Derbyniwyd: 13/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Catherine Clake

I object to the proposed new settlement in South Warwickshire Local Plan, particularly in Lapworth, due to concerns over flooding, lack of transport options, limited amenities, and utility issues. Development could worsen drainage problems, increase traffic congestion, and strain local services like schools and healthcare. Specifically, I oppose site Ref 161, as construction risks further flooding and impacts the surrounding land and lanes. I request the refusal of these site allocations to protect the village’s land and infrastructure.

No

ID sylw: 108103

Derbyniwyd: 05/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Liz Wood

I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the proposed C1 development and the additional “call for sites” put forward for the Lapworth/Kingswood/Rowington area. These would place overwhelming pressures on what are currently small villages, in particular because of the lack of infrastructure in these areas. Large investment would be required in terms of roads, schools, doctors’ surgeries and utility supplies which would surely be easier to accommodate if additional housing were sited closer to existing larger towns already better serviced by these.

The road infrastructure around Lapworth and Rowington is not compatible with a large increase in vehicles as would be inevitable with the numbers of houses proposed.
The section of Old Warwick Road through Lapworth, adjacent to the Boot is also prone to flooding, and is often contaminated by sewage as reported on several occasions, when the drainage is unable to cope and runs off into adjacent water courses.

Lapworth village only offers limited amenities – there is a small village shop, a post office open limited hours and hairdressers. For the majority of shopping needs, it is necessary to travel at least 2 miles, but for most requirements it is necessary to travel more than 5. Whilst there is a train station at Lapworth, this line is already running at capacity, carrying a lot of freight and with insufficient rolling stock available to increase passenger trains stopping there. There is only parking for 16 cars with no space available to extend this. In addition, access to northbound trains is limited as there is only a pedestrian footbridge to reach this platform. Buses are very infrequent, and the use of bicycles is positively dangerous when having to share narrow roads with other traffic.

The villages do not have a gas supply, and already experience issues with the current electric supply which can only worsen with significant increased demand.

There is currently only one school, a primary, to serve this area, which would be unable to take large numbers of extra pupils. In addition, older children already have to travel some distance for their schooling and a large increase in numbers would necessitate many more car journeys, particularly at already busy periods on congested local roads.

At the present time, there is only one GP practice to serve the local community and it is already running at capacity.

Whilst appreciating some need for additional housing, developing an area hitherto largely designated as Green Belt does not seem to tally with a more general widespread recognition of a need to encourage rewilding and protection of our natural environment, especially when there are “brown” sites which could be considered and fully utilised beforehand.
Until such time as there are major improvements in the village infrastructure, I therefore feel any development around the village should be concentrated on the smallest sites.

No

ID sylw: 108151

Derbyniwyd: 04/03/2025

Ymatebydd: David Edwards

I object to the proposed new settlement location at ‘Land south of
Kingswood’ (reference C1), and consider it entirely undevelopable and
unsuitable for the following reasons:
1. None of the land comprising the proposed new settlement at ‘Land
south of Kingswood’ (ref C1) has been submitted to the Council by a
willing landowner and made available for development. Also, there are
at least 25 different landowners within the proposed settlement area.
This means that land assembly would be lengthy, difficult, and
collaboration of most landowners would be required to facilitate this as
a viable and feasible location for growth. The National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF), at paragraph 72 requires planning policies to
“identify a supply of… b) specific, developable sites or broad locations
for growth, for the subsequent years 6-10 and, where possible, for years
11-15 of the remaining plan period”. The NPPF states that “To be
considered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for
housing development with a reasonable prospect that they will be
available and could be viably developed at the point envisaged.” Since
none of the land comprising ‘Land south of Kingswood’ has been made
available the settlement option has no real prospects of delivery, is not
developable, and should not form any part of the Council’s housing land
supply.
2. Land south of Kingswood is in the Green Belt. The NPPF is clear, at
paragraph 145 that “Once established, Green Belt boundaries should
only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced
and justified through the preparation or updating of plans.” Whilst I
appreciate that the Plan needs to meet a high housing requirement and
a new settlement could contribute substantially to this need, there are
seven other ‘new settlement’ locations proposed outside of the Green
Belt. Thus, there are a range of none-Green Belt alternatives available to
assist the Councils in meeting their identified need for homes which do
not require the release of Green Belt land. For this reason, there are no
exceptional circumstances to justify the release of ‘Land south of
Kingswood’ from the Green Belt.
3. The Council’s Green Belt assessment concludes that the site is
contributing ‘strongly’ to safeguarding the countryside from
encroachment. The proposed new settlement location at Kingswood
does not appear to include any permanent boundaries that would
prevent further encroachment in the long term.
4. Kingswood/Lapworth does not have the necessary infrastructure to
support a new settlement. Old Warwick Road is a single carriageway
providing the only means of highway access into and out of the village
from the strategic road network. This road navigates a canal and railway
line with a narrow bridge across the canal and an equally low bridge
over the railway, which is unsuitable for high sided vehicles. A new
settlement in Kingswood could not function properly with sole reliance
on this road. The ‘Land south of Kingswood’ location would require
extensive new infrastructure across said railway line and two canals.
5. The ‘Land south of Kingswood’ location is rural and remote from the
strategic road network and major employment opportunities. The
nearest motorway junction to Kingswood on the M40 provides
northbound access only. Southbound access onto the M40 is some 10
miles away whilst the nearest all-ways junction onto the M42 is some 5
miles away. Whilst a new settlement could incorporate some new,
small scale, local employment opportunities, its location and
relationship with the strategic road network and existing employment
cannot be overcome.
6. Whilst Lapworth benefits from a train station, the services are
infrequent, and the car parking is severely limited to circa 16 car parking
spaces. There does not appear to be any available land for expansion of
the car park to support increased use of the station. In addition, the
proposed settlement at ‘Land south of Kingswood’ does not relate well
to the train station and sustainable travel to this via walking and cycling
is considered unlikely. Thus, in the main, travel to work would rely on
the private car. This is compounded by the lack of bus services in
Lapworth / Kingswood.
7. The site is undulating, and levels vary between c.95m and c.125m AOD.
A variance of 30m is likely to give rise to substantial visual landscape
harm.
8. Baddesley Clinton comprises a Grade 1 Listed Building, a range of Grade
II Listed Buildings and its grounds are registered as a historic park and
garden. A new settlement of significant scale adjacent to Baddesley
Clinton would cause substantial harm to the setting of this important
and irreplaceable heritage asset.
9. I note that the site assessment refers to capacity at Lapworth school,
however the school was oversubscribed at the latest reception intake
and therefore future capacity is unlikely to be available.

No

ID sylw: 108204

Derbyniwyd: 22/06/2025

Ymatebydd: Lucy Pickard

C1 and the Kingswood Sites should not be included in the preferred sites identified for the SWLP for the following key reasons:
- Delivering infrastructure in line with the objectives and policies in the SWLP would be a major undertaking.
- There are other preferred sites identified in the SWLP Preferred Options that should be pursued, that prevent a concentrated development and urban sprawl to the north of South Warwickshire, won’t require development of the Green Belt or quality agriculturalland and will meet the objectives as laid out in the SWLP.
- The sustainability appraisal relating to C1 is flawed and pursuing or relying upon it would not deliver a robust local plan.
- C1 would not demonstrate ‘exceptional circumstances’ under the NPPF, so it cannot possibly justify the inclusion of Green Belt land as a new settlement.
- Any development of New Settlement C1 would not meet NPPF Paragraph 198.
- The inability to align the New Settlement C1 with the 20-minute neighbourhood
concept, which is wholly inappropriate for a rural area such as this and is more suitable for more urban areas with robust infrastructure and service provision.

Other

ID sylw: 108892

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Warwickshire County Council

Minerals and Waste

No objections on mineral sterilisation subject to prior extraction of minerals and subject to
• Minerals Assessment Report (for assessing the possible impact on mineral resources and determining whether prior extraction is achievable),
• Materials Management Report (for assessing the sourcing and use of construction materials including the availability of on-site materials for reuse/recycling),
• Site Waste Management Plan (a plan for reusing/recycling waste on site and avoiding off-site disposal to landfill),
• Soil Management Plan (a plan to manage all soils on site during construction)

Active Travel

There is no existing cycling infrastructure that connects this area to the key local centres of Dorridge (approx. 4km) and south Birmingham. via the Blythe Valley Park employment site (approx. 6km). There is an existing network of cycle routes at Blythe Valley Park (approx. 6km) which connects into cycle an expanding network of routes feeding to Solihull, Shirley and Birmingham. Destinations beyond Blythe Valley Park are likely to be at the extreme of distances people could reasonably be expected to regularly cycle. The Grand Union Canal provides a potential cycling connection towards south Solihull and could potentially form part of a route to Blythe Valley Park, however the towpath would need to be upgraded to make it suitable for all year round cycling for utility/commuting trips and this does not connect directly to services or facilities. This site has no other cycling connections to urban areas although there is a network of low trafficked rural roads and lanes that have potential to be used for some cycling trips by cyclists comfortable with cycling in traffic. It becomes more difficult to find low trafficked on-road routes closer to urban areas.

There is extremely limited off-road cycling infrastructure in Dorridge.
New off-road cycling routes would be required to connect to both Dorridge and Blythe Valley Park. The Grand Union Canal would need to be upgraded to make it suitable for all year round utility/commuting cycling trips and provides limited connectivity benefits.

Key challenges relate to the length of connection required, a lack of space within the existing highway boundaries, the need to safely route across key transport corridors and deliver direct connections to existing urban cycling networks through built up areas all of which is likely to require significant amounts of third party land to be acquired. Our initial analysis therefore suggests this location will face significant deliverability and affordability challenges. The services, facilities and employment opportunities are relatively limited at Dorridge and Blythe Valley Park which are the most local centres. Upgrading the Grand Union Canal towpath would need the support of the Canals and Rivers Trust.

The site is well-related to the rail network in terms of Lapworth station which is located on the Birmingham to Leamington Spa (Chiltern) line. The station is currently served by a two-hourly stopping service operated by Chiltern Railways. West Midlands Trains hourly service between Stratford, Birmingham and Kidderminster (via Dorridge) also call at the station. The travel time to Birmingham and Stratford- upon-Avon is around 20 minutes in each direction.

The main issue on the rail network in this area is the lack of any substantial capacity to increase service frequencies much beyond their current level, due to a combination of passenger and freight services. As well as those services outlined above there is a Cross Country service each hour which uses the line but which does not call at any stations between Birmingham and Leamington Spa. The corridor is also heavily used for freight, most notably intermodal services to/from the deep sea ports at Southampton. A potential reconfiguration of some local services is currently being explored by WMRE, looking at how an hourly Birmingham to Leamington service could be delivered which would call at Lapworth. There is likely to be a need however to provide certain track and signaling improvements at Leamington to allow these services to operate.

Lapworth station would require substantial upgrading if it were to be the focus of rail provision to support a new settlement option in this area. The station has limited parking, with little obvious scope for expansion. The roads leading to it are a mixture of country lanes and residential roads with limited scope for improvement. Measures would be needed to manage parking in Kingswood village around the station to deter on-street parking by rail users. Active travel improvements to allow people to walk and cycle to the station would be required, along with cycle parking and an ‘Access for All’ footbridge with lifts. Opportunities to bring buses into the station forecourt would be limited due to the nature of the roads in the area and the available space.

Rail services at Lapworth would benefit from the proposed upgrade to at least an hourly service between Leamington and Birmingham. This will require ongoing engagement and negotiation with the West Midlands Rail Executive and train operators.

The scale of the infrastructure requirements at Lapworth is affordable but with some significant challenges in relation to deliverability, most notably around the provision of parking. Further work is needed to understand how new or enhanced rail services to serve Lapworth will be delivered contractually and in terms of any subsidy payments by a developer.

Bus

There are no inter-urban bus routes which pass near or through the site. Local bus services are also limited in this area. Rail services on the Chiltern line provide the main public transport links for local residents.

A new high quality, frequent service between Hockley Heath, Lapworth Rail Station, Shrewley Common, Warwick Parkway, Warwick and Leamington Spa will be required to help meet demand from the new settlement. An upgrade of the existing Service 510/511/513/514 which operate over parts of this corridor is not considered appropriate due to the many communities they serve and the nature of the country lanes which the bus takes.

Provision of high quality bus stops with shelters, Real Time Information and raised kerbs, along with bus priority measures at key junctions on the route of the proposed inter-urban service and within the new settlement should be provided. This will include locations within the West Midlands Combined Authority area, therefore the involvement of Transport for the West Midlands (TfWM) and Solihull Council in the development of this route should be sought.

The proposed new inter-urban bus service and associated infrastructure improvements should be deliverable, affordable and viable in the long term if planned and promoted properly.

Highway (Strategic)

The site is poorly related to the SRN. M40 Junction 16, which is accessed via the B4439 and A3400 is located to the west of the site, but only has west-facing slips. This arrangement was provided specifically to protect traffic from rat-running through Hockley Heath between M42 Junction 4 (Monkspath) and M40 Junction 16. M42 Junction 4 is approximately 6 miles away and can be accessed from the site via the B4439 and A3400.

The limited access to the M40 at Junction 16 is a constraint to certain strategic movements from this area, specifically towards Warwick and Leamington Spa.

The M5/M6/M42 Motorway Box distributes strategic traffic passing through, around and within the West Midlands conurbation. As such it carries very heavy traffic levels throughout the day and at weekends. Part of the M42 is covered by Active Traffic Management measures to help manage flows during peak periods of use and during incidents. Provision of Smart Motorway technology on other sections of the M42 was under consideration until the recent pause was instigated by the previous Government.

A new Junction 5A on the M42 is currently being constructed by National Highways as part of a committed scheme from its Road Investment Strategy Period 2 (2020- 25) programme. The aim of the scheme is to improve the operation of M42 Junction 6 near Birmingham Airport/NEC and the forthcoming HS2 Interchange Station.

Improvements to the B4439 and A3400 to allow better access to the M40 and M42 will be required, although these will have impacts on Hockley Heath and the staggered junction arrangement between the A3400 and B4439/B4101. An assessment of impacts on M42 Junction 4 and the access to Blythe Valley Business Park will be required, with the timely engagement of National Highways. A wider assessment incorporating Junction 3A (M40/M42), Junction 5 (A41/A4141) and Junction 5A/6 (A45) may also be required to identify further mitigation.

An upgrade of M40 Junction 16 to provide an all-movements junction may be promoted by a developer but is unlikely to be supported by either National Highways, Solihull Council or Warwickshire County Council due to concerns over traffic re- routing away from the SRN, onto the A3400 and through the village of Hockley Heath.

Timely, proactive engagement with National Highways regarding the assessment of potential issues at M42 Junction 4 and the wider corridor and possible improvement measures should ensure they will be acceptable. Deliverability issues may be problematic if third-party (non-highway) land is required for any improvements at these junctions.

Highway (Local)

The site has reasonable access to the LRN, the main routes being the B4439 which passes through the site and links Warwick with Hockley Heath and South Birmingham, the A4141/A4177 which links Warwick with Knowle, Dorridge and Solihull and the A3400 which links Stratford-upon-Avon with Hockley Heath and South Birmingham.

Both the A4141/A4177 and A3400 were trunk routes (A41/A34) prior to the opening of the M40 in the early 1990’s, but neither are of a particularly high standard. They do however provide access to the motorway network (M40 Junction 16 and M42 Junctions 4 and 5). The B4439 is a cross-country route which links the A4177 (Hatton Locks) with the A3400 (Hockley Heath), which both cause queuing in peak periods due to their configuration and heavy mainline flows.

The low bridge in Kingswood village where the B4439 passes under the Birmingham to Leamington rail line is a constraint for certain vehicles due to its height restriction of 3.7m/12ft 3in. This could have implications for the construction of a new settlement in this area if it were to proceed.

The scope for improvements to the LRN in this area is limited. An alignment for the A3400 Hockley Heath Bypass was previously protected by Solihull Council, but this ceased around 2017/18. Improvements are likely to focus on the B4439, A3400 and A4141/A4177, as well as individual junctions such as the A4177/B4439 Hatton Locks and A3400/B4439/B4101 Hockley Heath – although whether these will be sufficient to mitigate the impacts of a new settlement in this area will need to be confirmed through detailed modelling, with the involvement of Solihull Council.

There is unlikely to be any appetite from Warwickshire County Council to improve the B4439 low railway bridge at Kingswood, as by doing so it may serve to attract larger vehicles from South Birmingham and Redditch to use the route to access the M40 at Junction 15 (Warwick). There are also likely to be engineering challenges in lowering the carriageway associated with water and flooding.

Modest improvements to the alignment of the B4439, A3400, A4141/A4177 and associated junctions noted above should be both deliverable and affordable, although third-party land may need to be secured. Any potential resurrection of the Hockley Heath Bypass would need to be discussed with Solihull Council and Warwickshire County Council. The cost of this scheme if it were to fall entirely on the new settlement may not affordable or deliverable, as it falls outside the indicative land boundary of the new settlement.


Education Impacts


Overall numbers would suggest the need for 1 new secondary school for 6,000 new dwellings and 2 new secondary schools for 10,000 new homes.

At primary we would suggest the need for 3 or 4 new primary schools for 6,000 new dwellings and between 5 and 7 new primary schools for 10,000 new dwellings.

The possibility of delivering all through schools to be considered, i.e. co-location of at least part of the primary offer with new secondary facilities.

There is an assumption that all new primary facilities will include early years facilities and Special Resource Provision facilities.

There is an assumption that all new secondary schools will provide for sixth form teaching on site and that there will also be a Specialist Resource Provision included.

No local capacity to take initial growth. Home to school transport implications.