No

Representation ID: 87150

Received: 05/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rozanne Harris

I am extremely concerned the impact of a possible development of over 6000 homes at BW's impacting the village I live in, Snitterfield. I can see that increasing Bearley by this much will result in Snitterfield becoming a rat run through to the A46 & M40 which would significantly degrade our quality of life in the village. I am also concerned the impact such a large development will have on the Snitterfield Bushes which are already delicate and the local road infrastructure which already cannot cope with the weekly influx of visitors every weekend and bank holiday into Stratford.

No

Representation ID: 87156

Received: 05/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jan Wood

The Plan for proposed Solar Farms takes in some land that we own, we have never been consulted about this. The proposed area comes right upto our listed house and listed barn, how can this happen and how can it be put forward to the public domain without us being consulted?

No

Representation ID: 87162

Received: 05/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs LUCY FIRTH

Green belt should not be developed on. The proposed development sites in Kingswood would not be suitable for many reasons;
Heritage site
Conservation area
Roads are not suitable for an increase in traffic or construction vehicles due to a low bride which cannot be altered
Doctors is at full capacity
Not enough schools in the area
Not enough room for cycle paths or widening of the paths
It will increase the light pollution
Noise pollution
Ruin agricultural farming land

No

Representation ID: 87181

Received: 06/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Charlotte Franklin

Green areas should be protected. Traffic in Leamington area is already very high. Huge amount of new housing already built and overwhelming such a lovely area that needs to be protected.

No

Representation ID: 87190

Received: 06/02/2025

Respondent: Mr James Mckiernan

Disappointing to see that the area around Hatton Park and Hatton proper are being ranked so highly as suitable for development, seemingly because of the single ownership (Arkwright family) of most of the site and apparent ease of getting the development delivered.

This site is entirely innapropriate for such ahuge development and while I'm not against development of the area at the righ density, this is far from it. The infrastructure not cope currently with recent large developments in Hatton Park and Hampton Magna (with more already imminent in the latter), let alone this.

Other

Representation ID: 87191

Received: 06/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Christopher Howarth

Would like to know where the Information Centre is in Shipston on Stour and was disappointed in the Consultation afternoon held in the confines of the Shipston Leisure Centre

Yes

Representation ID: 87220

Received: 06/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Babs Gisborne-Land

OK

No

Representation ID: 87262

Received: 07/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Chloe Grantham

With living in Studley all my life I can’t imagine there being a development of 1000 houses. This would ruin the environment and create more of a problem for traffic. There’s not enough services to accommodate for this. The doctors, dentist & schools would suffer. With the area being on green belt surely this should be opposed against? The area would become more polluted. This would double Studley and the view would be ruined. Houses all built on top of each other not considering the nature.

No

Representation ID: 87275

Received: 07/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Rebecca Tee

Local roads around do not support level of housing. Local estates already have drivers speeding and yet there are 5 schools in the communities close to proposed plans.
Countryside already decimated by HS2.
Disgraceful using green belt.

No

Representation ID: 87286

Received: 08/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Broughton

Inadequate infrastructure to support the plan in particular Road, rail, schooling, medical - hospital and GP surgeries

No

Representation ID: 87316

Received: 08/02/2025

Respondent: Rebecca Mitchell

Your preferred option shows buildings very close to Warwick racecourse, right next to Gogg Brook. This brook already has a huge burden of Warwick racecourse excess water being piped into Gogg Brook. The attached football club is also draining water into the Brook. Areas around Chase Meadow and Forbes Estate are under increasing flood risk. The extra run off would be untenable.

No

Representation ID: 87334

Received: 08/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Stuart Grant

1) Loss of green belt and agricultural land
2) No extra capacity in the local schools.
3) Roads in the area are already overcrowded with commuters and parents dropping off and picking up from the local schools in the morning and afternoons.
4) Doctor's surgeries are having to take extreme measures to handle the current level of patients. Is there a plan for more surgeries?
5) Increase in pollution in and around local school sites due to overcrowded roads and standing traffic.

No

Representation ID: 87338

Received: 08/02/2025

Respondent: Mr K Shaw

Road infrastructure is insufficient and retaining productive arable land should be a priority

Other

Representation ID: 87376

Received: 08/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Nicholas Guntrip-Hook

The importance of prioritising future generational needs as less of us drive, and take public services, to jobs. Avoiding the coalescence of parishes. Encouraging optimal positioning for homes to healthcare, shops and the village hub. Considering the importance of infrastructure first and the priority of public needs over private profit

No

Representation ID: 87462

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Taylor

The area is already been over developed over the last 5 years especially. The roads cannot cope with the volume of traffic through Barford, Warwick and Leamington now. To build another 6,000 houses in X1 area would bring the roads to a standstill. The infrastructure is already overwhelmed, how can it possibly support this kind of development. It is already difficult to get doctors or hospital appointments. The schools are also difficult to get into.

No

Representation ID: 87622

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rachel James

We absolutely DO NOT support the proposal. Insufficient infrastructure, no capacity in schools and health facilities, spoiling the countryside and current farming use. It’s disrespectful to the people that live here to think new build estates are appropriate. People live here because they do NOT want to live in a built up area and they have homes sympathetic with the landscape. This is no place for the obligatory social housing that comes with new estates. New developments bring people that do not respect the land, have nothing to do and a spike in crime is inevitable.

No

Representation ID: 87647

Received: 09/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Ed Lax

SG06 green belt shouldn't be built on, as it's a valued space for walking, exercise, and wellbeing. Housing targets can be met elsewhere without sacrificing this protected land. SG06 lacks the infrastructure for thousands of new homes, which would worsen traffic and strain schools, GPs, dentists and other essential services. It also supports biodiversity, high-quality farmland, and prevents urban sprawl. The Local Plan prioritises sustainability, yet building here would undermine those principles. Once lost, Green Belt land cannot be recovered, and approving development would set a harmful precedent. Preserving SG06 is essential for Leamington’s environment, character, and community.

Yes

Representation ID: 87678

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mr justin kerridge

broadly support

No

Representation ID: 87759

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Melinda Wood

I disagree with the proposal to build 8000 houses at Hatton on Green Belt land. Green belt is green belt for a reason. It protects our wildlife and if violated will result in a sprawling continuum of housing similar to the states. It is important to maintain green belt in its legal status to support the environment and sustainability. The Warwickshire wildlife trust is actively trying to purchase land to create corridors that link habitats. Not only this, the land identified in section B1 is currently being farmed and this should be safeguarded

No

Representation ID: 87768

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Ellison

SG06 is entirely unsuitable for development. It contradicts the Local Plan’s sustainability goals, relies on flawed assessments, and ignores policies protecting the Green Belt, farmland, and biodiversity. Removing this land would set a dangerous precedent for urban sprawl, permanently damaging North Leamington’s character and environment. I urge the Council to remove SG06 from consideration and prioritize sustainable, non-Green Belt locations that align with planning principles and community needs. Approving this development would cause irreversible harm to our environment, infrastructure, and quality of life.

No

Representation ID: 87778

Received: 10/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Holly Hoque

This land provides a much needed respite from the town and a habitat for wildlife.
Many people of all ages enjoy the footpaths across this land for wellbeing
I strongly oppose the proposal

No

Representation ID: 87846

Received: 11/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Catherine Vincett

Due to the danger of Offchurch Road and the flooding issues we already incur I am not in support of the proposal to build new homes between Cubbington and Lillington. I am in fear everyday walking my children from my house around the corner of Offchurch Road opposite Thwaites because of the blind bend, the speed at which cars travel around it and the narrowness of the road, particularly with the significant increase of enormous lorries and construction vehicles which regularly have to mount the curb to pass each other. IT IS NOT SAFE.

No

Representation ID: 87925

Received: 12/02/2025

Respondent: mr mark betker

I think the whole process is designed to alienate and discourage residents to contribute to the future planning process, thus easing the way for undemocratic decisions relating to planning being decided against the wishes of the communities and majority of people, by a minority who have made the whole process over complex and dependent upon being tech savvy.

Other

Representation ID: 88098

Received: 13/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Amanda Willson

Trying to find information about developments in and around Barford.

Yes

Representation ID: 88209

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Ms Julie Hudson

Overall it is helpful to have several ways to respond and to be able to select relevant sections.

The consultation contains a huge amount of material and requires a very high level of literacy. Will respondents fairly represent local demographics, or mostly (unfairly) the engaged intelligentsia?

On the call for land for large scale clean energy, I think more transparency is needed. How will balance between community and commercial schemes be achieved, given scope for opportunism? The economics of commercial green energy owned by eg powerful national developers are less likely to be fairly shared.

Other

Representation ID: 88210

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Ida Marjorie Brown

Less sites is required for Travellers. SWLP / District Councils should push back on Government regarding a clear strategy to house Travellers in "New Strategic Sites in the UK" but not many dispersed site. Create their own community and not have sites within every district. Everyone residing their must be legally allowed to reside in UK.

No

Representation ID: 88211

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Philip Woods

As a resident of Shrewley Common, I would like to state my very strong objections to the proposals to develop the area of Hatton with 8000+ dwellings etc. The impact of such a huge development will be catastrophic for the local environment, and detrimental to the living conditions of all in the area . Apart from the loss and protection of Green Belt land , this development will overburden and cause the collapse of an already strained Infrastructure on Roads , Sewerage , Health , Education etc .

No

Representation ID: 88272

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Kathleen Chambers

Impact on traffic and highways, not able to cope with the additional traffic.
There is at the moment insufficient GP surgeries to cope with the present residents also schools and other community assets.
Also public services, water, electric etc are already over stretched.
Inappropriate development of the green belt is my main concern.

No

Representation ID: 88282

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Timlin

The proposed building developments on Greenbelt land in North Leamington is not needed. Aside from building on protected treasured greenbelt land, there is plenty of house building in south leamington to provide the need for housing in our area.The infrastructure is already creaking in the south of the town. There is no sustainable infrastructure or space for it in the north of the town. The main trunk roads and roads off them are swamped with traffic, the vehicle pollutants are suffocating the people and nature.The hard standing of buildings is impacting on natural rainfall run off and creating flooding.

No

Representation ID: 88286

Received: 14/02/2025

Respondent: Miss Jo Robinson

D