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.