No

Representation ID: 99202

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs yolanda steele

The damage to the Warwickshire countryside will be dramatic.
More traffic, pollution.
Damage causing flooding.
No infrastructure schools, doctors ect
Reducing land required for producing food.

No

Representation ID: 99206

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Araminta Chesters

I am concerned about in the impact on traffic and highways and local infrastructure such as GP surgeries and schools. More traffic will also create more noise.

I am also concerned about the impact on water resources - in Pillerton Hersey we already suffer from low water pressure at times and the pumping system to pump sewage to Butlers Marston has already exceeded its capacity and frequently floods. Severn Trent is unwilling to acknowledge that the water and sewage systems in the area are at capacity as more homes means more revenue .

No

Representation ID: 99223

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs yolanda steele

I object, on the grounds to the damage to the Warwickshire countryside.
Increased traffic also pollution.
No infrastructure schools , doctors ect.
Building on this scale will have an impact on increased flooding in the area.
There will be less land available for food production. Therefore food imports causing dependence on other countries and transportation and more expensive food.
Warwickshire is a beautiful area this proposal will cause so much damage!

Yes

Representation ID: 99607

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Sue Bedford

N/A

No

Representation ID: 99789

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Kelsey

Cubbington and Leamington are being over whelmed with new housing developments. We are a town, not a city. We should have at least some fields on the outskirts protected to surround our town and villages. We are being impacted by the HS2 route disruption to wildlife and green space. Why can’t new houses be built in areas that would create new towns and villages of their own? The schools and local hospital is already overrun - houses are being built without the support network needed for everyone to live comfortably.

No

Representation ID: 99821

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Peter Delve

As Stratford council has met or is very in close to housing targets and it in the top three in UK for numbers of new houses, Warwick sites should be prioritised over above those in Stratford to avoid Stratford and its residents being penalised for Warwick’s shortcomings and lack of housing plans over the last few years.

No

Representation ID: 99854

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Lewis Kelsey

I believe housing should be found using non-greenbelt spaces to try and protect North Leamingtons natural beauty.

I do not feel the the current infrastructure could accommodate the large influx of extra populous.

No

Representation ID: 99971

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Martin Coward

The approach relies very heavily on existing policy/guidance, much of which isn't working as designed. Existing new developments (i.e. Bishops Hill) were built with the expectation that a doctors surgery would be included. No binding commitment from the NHS was secured and no surgery has been built. No consideration for the impact on infrastructure in surrounding settlements is considered, particularly construction traffic. The authors are clearly very familiar with the plan structure; however this development plan is very difficult to follow and has not been written in plain English. What does "sustainable travel behaviour" mean?

No

Representation ID: 100108

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Immad Mor

Dont agree

No

Representation ID: 100129

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Pearson

Devastating this is being consulted on. It will completely change the area. It will affect the beautiful wildlife. Malthouse Lane can be busy and in summer with visitors there are parking issues and cars getting past parked cars. Sometimes it’s hard getting off the drive due to trying to see if it’s clear with parked cars obscuring the vision. More cars will make the road worse. It won’t be the same here anymore.
Concrete rather than deer running over the land. It’s just so sad. Opposing HELAA Part A Land off Malthouse Lane (Site 600 Land off Malthouse Lane)

No

Representation ID: 100232

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stuart Whalley

My Opinion: The criteria appears to be set up only to benefit house builders not communities. The countryside around Rouncil Lane is Green Belt. The animals and crop that grow is by no definition Grey. I oppose this build completely.
Kenilworth and Towns are already sprawling, traffic is already horrendous in Kenilworth, the air pollution from tyre pollution is already too high, productivity is already dropping.
More houses in Kenilworth will directly impact health, councillors that agree to building around Kenilworth know the consequences, they will be legally accountable for deliberately causing harm and illness by increasing traffic and pollution.

No

Representation ID: 100542

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Joe Rukin

It's all draft policy. Totally half-baked(redacted and changed the word)

You are proposing making massive decisions which will decide whether or not developments happen, and this is based on draft policy? Not actual evidenced policy that's been thought about, debated, appraised and voted on?

Nah, we're only talking about permanent changes to the landscape. Why bother with proper and full assessments?

Other

Representation ID: 100570

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural England - Warwickshire

The Plan Summary states, "Primarily, the Local Plan sets out how we will grow the South Warwickshire economy and create jobs through delivery of the net zero carbon agenda. It will ensure that the necessary infrastructure and the right type and number of homes are delivered to support the level of jobs we want to see across South Warwickshire to 2050."
The driver of the SWLP is not to grow the area's economy or create jobs, but to meet an imposed housing requirement. There is no need for a Plan for the area's economy. It is successful, providing full employment.

Other

Representation ID: 100608

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Thomas Lachlan

We strongly object to the proposed development on Site 712 due to severe highway safety risks along Church Lane, a narrow, pavement-free route heavily used by schoolchildren walking to Barford St Peter’s School. Increased traffic, particularly construction vehicles, would endanger pedestrians. Additionally, the site lies within the Conservation Area, harming the historic character of Church Lane and nearby listed buildings. Development would also destroy mature trees and important habitats, conflicting with environmental policies. Finally, the site is unsuitable under local planning policies, with clear non-compliance with Barford’s Neighbourhood Development Plan.

No

Representation ID: 100725

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land - Wellesbourne

The plan period should be extended and we have concerns about housing delivery through a two part plan.

No

Representation ID: 100741

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land - Wellesbourne

the plan period should be extended and we have concerns about housing delivery with a two part plan.

No

Representation ID: 100746

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Vistry Strategic Land - Wellesbourne

Land east of Southam was promoted as a reserve housing site and should be a priority location for short term development.

Yes

Representation ID: 100786

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Rowington Landowner Consortium

Agent: Knight Frank LLP

The Landowner Consortium generally supports the proposals in the introduction. It is anticipated that additional technical evidence will be provided and consulted upon with relevant stakeholders and interested parties as referenced throughout these responses to the respective policy directions.

No

Representation ID: 100790

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Robin Baker

SG06 is not a sustainable location for dense residential development. The development is predicated on the use of cars for transport and there are serious existing issues of peak time traffic that will be exacerbated by development in this location. Future development needs to factor in major improvements to cycling infrastructure to promote sustainable travel for short journeys between Warwick-Leamington-Kenilworth. The ridiculous length of time it is taking to develop the K2L cycle path (all 5km of it) is a demonstration of the council's ineffectiveness to grasp hold of even minor infrastructure projects

Other

Representation ID: 100818

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: AC Lloyd - Site 174

Agent: Delta Planning

AC Lloyd raise one issue that the SWLP is to be progressed in two parts. A single SWLP would be much clearer, without the need to save selected existing policies. It would better meet the Government’s expectations to ensure sites are quickly allocated, permitted and developed to drive economic growth. A number of policy areas typically associated with Part2 plans are coming forward in Part 1. If the Councils don't wish to allocate small residential sites at the non-strategic village level, then that aspect could be addressed through an overall requirement figure, criteria-based policies, and neighbourhood plans. See full response.

No

Representation ID: 100910

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Dr Nicola Sawle

if the SWLP consultation were following its proposals and guidance as set out a number of 'preferred sites 'that have been identified would not have been listed

Other

Representation ID: 100928

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: AC Lloyd

Agent: Delta Planning

AC Lloyd raise one issue that the SWLP is to be progressed in two parts. A single SWLP would be much clearer, without the need to save selected existing policies. It would better meet the Government’s expectations to ensure sites are quickly allocated, permitted and developed to drive economic growth. A number of policy areas typically associated with Part2 plans are coming forward in Part 1. If the Councils don't wish to allocate small residential sites at the non-strategic village level, then that aspect could be addressed through an overall requirement figure, criteria-based policies, and neighbourhood plans. See full response.

Other

Representation ID: 100937

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Richborough Commercial

Agent: Delta Planning

Richborough Commercial generally supports Chapter 1, with the exception that one single Local Plan, rather than two stage plan, should be progressed. Please refer to our complete response for full details.

No

Representation ID: 100946

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sally-Anne Coton

NO INFRASTRUCTURE

Other

Representation ID: 100958

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Adrian Summers on behalf of the Summers Family

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

Our client has proposed land for employment that is available for development, but the consultation draft has ruled out these prospective development opportunities based on the incorrect sifting of the site. At the same time that the evidence suggests a significant shortfall of development opportunities for non-strategic employment sites. In short, the sifting out of site 517 at this stage is without robust justification. We contend that our client’s site, for the reasons given in this consultation response, forms a logical and appropriate allocation to help accommodate the Districts’ identified employment land requirements.

Yes

Representation ID: 100978

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Zoe Leventhal

I think the proposed plan of work and outline is acceptable but consider that the document is overly complex and difficult to navigate for those within a detailed knowledge of the process or technical skills

Other

Representation ID: 101012

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: AC Lloyd - Sites 64 and 301

Agent: Delta Planning

AC Lloyd raise one issue that the SWLP is to be progressed in two parts. A single SWLP would be much clearer, without the need to save selected existing policies. It would better meet the Government’s expectations to ensure sites are quickly allocated, permitted and developed to drive economic growth. A number of policy areas typically associated with Part2 plans are coming forward in Part 1. If the Councils don't wish to allocate small residential sites at the non-strategic village level, then that aspect could be addressed through an overall requirement figure, criteria-based policies, and neighbourhood plans. See full response.

No

Representation ID: 101017

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Fernie

Inappropriate development of the Green Belt

Yes

Representation ID: 101052

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Ettington Estate Ltd

Agent: Origin3

We consider that the SWLP Part 1 should set out clearly in the introduction that it will identify sufficient land to ensure that the need for new homes over the plan period will be met in full, and that site allocations to deliver sufficient numbers of new homes will be made in the SWLP Part 1 and will not be deferred to later plan making processes.

Other

Representation ID: 101054

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Mr John Lowry

1. Green Belt must be honoured.
2. Safety of existing ancient and dangerous electricity supply on Rouncil Lane must be addressed before further load is added.