Yes

ID sylw: 102668

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr peter hatcher

Yes, suitable but only if the road infrastructure is massively improved around the B4100, B4087 and Jct13 of the M40.

Yes

ID sylw: 102903

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Jem Brown

Agree this is a less suitable option because it is rural and lacking infrastructure. Contains some habitats but not as much as F2, F3 and G3. Adjacent to Oakley Wood Local Wildlife Site (LWS) and contains Plestowes Spinney and Hareway Lane Woodland LWS

Other

ID sylw: 102918

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Dr Diana Taulbut

If it were built up to the boundaries shown, then no - it immediately compromises Barford. However, a genuine, actual village settlement (not fields of houses) built in the local vernacular which centered on the middle of the area with a shop and community hall could work there. Care would have to be taken with the topology so as not to overwhelm the non-nucleated nature of the surrounding countryside.

No

ID sylw: 103058

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Charlotte Scott

While there is a need for additional housing within Warwickshire I have serious concerns as to the scale of this and how it can be workable. Existing infrastructure is severely lacking with the only viable transport routes being possible were there to be widespread destruction of the environment. Schools; Sport and recreational facilities; Health care facilities, digital infrastructure; energy, water and waste management) would also be a concern. The proposed developments will lead to merging parishes which is at odds with protecting and enhancing our environmental assets a key objective 12 in SWLP assets.

Other

ID sylw: 103074

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Severn Trent Water

This development will likely require treatment at Warwick - Longbridge (STW) Treatment Works, this Wastewater Treatment Works has medium capacity constraints and high environmental constraints. Due to the size of the development, it is recommended that network upgrades will be required, alongside hydraulic modelling and engagement with STW. Overall this development site is considered a medium/high risk location, there is some capacity however in order to accommodate growth, infrastructure upgrades will be required and we would need to work closely to understand build timelines, in order to plan accordingly.

No

ID sylw: 103421

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Liz Harrison-Hall

Area X 1:
I object to this area being consdered for development on the following grounds:
Damaging biodiversity: Oakley \ood is an important area of ancient proitected woodland and is home to numerous and diverse species which would be severely damaged by proximity to such development
LAck of Infrastructure - health care, housing, water and sewerage
Vehicles flooding our over-used road system.
Increased air and noise pollution

No

ID sylw: 103614

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Philip Wall

Will break the separation between Leam / Warwick and Barford. Loss of greenbelt and prime agricultural land

No

ID sylw: 103747

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Deborah Carter

By prioritising sustainable, non-Green Belt sites, housing can be delivered responsibly—without destroying the countryside, harming biodiversity, or overwhelming local services.

No

ID sylw: 103783

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Peter Scott

The size 6000 houses far exceeds the housing requirements according to the housing HEDNA calculations for the whole of South Warwickshire. The existing infrastructure is clearly unable to support such a massive uplift in local requirements. Transport links would be a major concern as they stand and would only work were there to be widespread environmental destruction of grade 1 farmland. THis would contravene the objective in SWLP of protecting and enhancing our environmental assets.

Yes

ID sylw: 103785

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Micheal Dylan

Good amenities local to this post entail site. Road networks are good locally. This site would fit well with X2 in attracting additional amenaties

No

ID sylw: 103861

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Nicola Loades

This huge proposed residential expansion would be absurdly detrimental to this lovely green landscape separating Leamington from the Wellesbourne area villages. The surrounding roads are already full with traffic. There is no way that the pressure of so many additional cars as a result of this could be adsorbed. It would therefore be a dangerous nightmare for all travellers in the area.
Also , the required additional infrastructure facilities would be huge. Are there really the resources to fund this ?
Please do not not allow such huge damage to this area !

No

ID sylw: 104024

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Kay Haycock

X1, X2: Considered undevelopable due to multiple ownership issues and lack of infrastructure. Only 14% of X1 and 47% of X2 have been put forward for development, making them both unviable.

X1, X2: Fail key NPPF tests, particularly in transport accessibility, infrastructure provision, and realistic deliverability.
Conclusion:
X1 and X2 should be discounted as they fail on sustainability, deliverability, and infrastructure grounds. The Regulation 19 SWLP must provide more explicit justifications and mitigation plans to be considered sound.

Yes

ID sylw: 104054

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Dr Nicola Sawle

non green belt , fits the M40 corridor requirement. Would serve industry in that area which is being developed

Yes

ID sylw: 104085

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Dr Tobias Cox

The proposed housing on this site impacts on the residents of barford significantly. The school is fully subscribed and increases in population would require provision for education.

Traffic within the village is high presenting a hazard to local children. Increasing population density would compound this risk and road congestion.

This site contains vistas of the countryside and building over this will detrimentally impact on locals quality of life alongside reducing arable countryside and ability for the Uk to meet food self sufficiency goals.

No

ID sylw: 104098

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Louis haycock

X1, X2: Considered undevelopable due to multiple ownership issues and lack of infrastructure. Only 14% of X1 and 47% of X2 have been put forward for development, making them both unviable.

X1, X2: Fail key NPPF tests, particularly in transport accessibility, infrastructure provision, and realistic deliverability.
Conclusion:
X1 and X2 should be discounted as they fail on sustainability, deliverability, and infrastructure grounds. The Regulation 19 SWLP must provide more explicit justifications and mitigation plans to be considered sound.

No

ID sylw: 104134

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Elliot Cooke

I strongly object to the proposed development sites X1, SG09, SG10, SG15, SG16, and the additional fields to the east and west of Sherbourne due to their adverse impact on infrastructure, environmental sustainability, village character, and traffic congestion. These proposals contradict the South Warwickshire Local Plan’s vision for sustainable, well-connected, and environmentally responsible development.

No

ID sylw: 104325

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Dr Charlotte Moss

My daughter is at school in Barford and the classes are full. There is no other local school near X1, so where would children go to school?
This is an area of natural beauty, of fields, woods and hedgerows, and building a new settlement here would cause incredible damage to the natural environment. Furthermore the roads are mostly narrow country lanes, which would not be able to support an increase in traffic.

No

ID sylw: 104393

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Paul Watson

From a landscape perspective this is a totally unsuitable location. It would be completely incongruous.

No

ID sylw: 104463

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Campaign to Protect Rural England - Warwickshire

X1 Land between Barford, Wellesbourne and the M40: This is open countryside east of the River Avon. It is farming landscape (some BMV land) with narrow roads. It would be dependent on cars unless costly public transport links were made with Warwick and Leamington.
If M40 junction 13 were to be enlarged to handle more traffic (as is implied with this proposal) it would become a large, noisy and intrusive feature which the present unlit one-direction interchenge is not.
Location X1 should not be pursued.

No

ID sylw: 104589

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Ailsa Chambers

The lack of transport accessibility and infrastructure makes this option unviable. Development on this site would present significant environmental and heritage issues which cannot be mitigated. Too much of our local natural habitats have already been lost and it would be environmentally irresponsible to lose more. Bishops Tachbrook’s village characteristics will be lost forever if the sprawl of development between the village and Leamington does not stop.

Yes

ID sylw: 104610

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Amy Bambridge

It makes sense to develop around Leamington, which affords easier transport access to shops, recreation and hospitals. Leamington town centre is also in desperate need of economic rejuvenation.

Yes

ID sylw: 104752

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Dr Susan Hood

Good for transport links, not designated as LWS/SSSI etc. Adjacent to existing urban areas.

No

ID sylw: 104898

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Paul Jackson

I object to this development. Barford and Wellesbourne have grown so much over the last 10 years that the extra houses would stretch the infrastructure too far. Traffic is already a problem, and would be considerably worse with the road network unable to cope. The site for Barford particularly seems inappropriate as it would dwarf the current village and lead to gridlock at busy periods, the village already struggles to cope with traffic from one primary school

No

ID sylw: 104918

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Ms Anna Johnston

Major building here would destroy environmentally rich agricultural area land; insufficient local road infrastructure; poor existing public transport infrastructure;area lacks schools

Yes

ID sylw: 105043

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Ian Bothamley

I consider this proposed site to be a more preferable location as it is not in Greenbelt land which should be protected and is close to the M40 but would not put additional strain onto the A46/M40 which is already at breaking point before the Union View and Kenilworth developments are complete

Yes

ID sylw: 105084

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Mrs Emma Gurdag

not in Green Belt, proximity to existing new developments and industrial/employment centres, better existing infrastructure.

No

ID sylw: 105251

Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Stratford upon Avon District Council

X1 – Land south of Leamington/north of Wellesbourne/east of Barford – OBJECT - capacity 6520 homes:
1) Significant harm caused to the character of the landscape and urbanization of neighbouring villages
2) Loss of best and most versatile farmland
3) Lack of rail connectivity
4) Significant harm caused by major pollution and air quality caused by increased vehicle movements on A429 from Wellesbourne, UoW Innovation Campus and mineral extraction site at Barford/Wasperton
5) Lack of capacity at education and health facilities in Wellesbourne, Barford and Bishops Tachbrook

No

ID sylw: 105260

Derbyniwyd: 23/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Ken Wheal

Barford Quarry
I must object in the most strongest way possible against the above. I live in Wellesbourne and the traffic is bad enough now without the Quarry traffic. When this would do to ones health and wellbeing can be imagined. The site is good arable farm land and as the population is growing so the need of food will also go up.

No

ID sylw: 105449

Derbyniwyd: 26/02/2025

Ymatebydd: Jo Hope

I have several objections regarding the proposed housing development. Firstly, it will harm the environment by increasing pollution and noise. Traffic and parking issues will worsen, and Wellesbourne's character will be further diminished as it has already expanded beyond its village status without adequate amenities. Local schools are at capacity, and additional houses will exacerbate traffic problems. Flooding risks will increase due to more impermeable surfaces, and the existing SUDS scheme has been ineffective. Finally, the development would take over valuable farmland, undermining our self-sufficiency in food production.

Yes

ID sylw: 105568

Derbyniwyd: 07/03/2025

Ymatebydd: Mr Alexander Hargie

X1 and X2 are both logical extensions to continue the development of South Leamington and would work well alongside all the strategic growth locations of SG09/SG10/SG11. They are well supported by all the current and additional infrastructure already being provided by this ongoing development including access to the M40 motorway junctions 13 and 14.