No

Representation ID: 96062

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Judith Palmer

The release of this detail has left local residents feeling blind-sided by the scale. It does not feel a strong consultation process when this seems to be the first point many local residents have been aware. As rural areas, documents at libraries is not taking the message to people, it is merely ticking a box that docs were available. When you actively choose to live in a rural area, and work 9-5, accessing libraries is often not a key activity. A calls for sites process only supports those who wish to sell their land, not the people who live there.

No

Representation ID: 96067

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Wilmcote Parish Council

Wilmcote Parish Council do NOT support the proposals.
Wilmcote Parish Council urges decision-makers to reject this development, as it would cause irreparable harm to our local community, environment and infrastructure. While we acknowledge the need for housing, this proposal is neither sustainable nor responsible.
We call on Stratford-on-Avon District Council and South Warwickshire Local Plan authorities to:
• Prioritise existing communities.
• Protect the green belt from unnecessary development.
• Explore alternative, more sustainable and stainable housing solutions.
If this site is allocated in the Local Plan, local councillors and parish councils must have a role in shaping the design, infrastructure and phasing of the development to minimise harm and secure necessary facilities for residents.

Other

Representation ID: 96088

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Summers Holdings Ltd

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

The Plan is in 2 parts which means that our clients might not find out whether their site forms part of the plan for many years. The distinction between Parts 1 and 2 is unclear. Existing draft plans - such as the Stratford Site Allocations appear to be left 'hanging' in a state where they are not completed.

The plan looking forward 25 years is supported but it is highly unlikely that any significant contribution will be forthcoming from a new settlement for a decade. Site 758 is immediately available and could be assimilated into New Settlement A1.

Other

Representation ID: 96180

Received: 04/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Tracey Mumford

N/A

No

Representation ID: 96272

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Stuart Hayward-Higham

The plan does not protect the green belt and the biodiversity and social benefits from access to open wild spaces

No

Representation ID: 96380

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs wendy dean

Like everything else times and situations change according to the Government in place. This new regislation is a serious abuse of individual rights. We live in a quiet village with a wonderful community looking after one another. Had I wanted to live in a big housing estate, then I would have. This Plan is outrageous. The countryside will become a traffic jam with pollution. The traffic noise will be horrendous. The birdsong and wildlife will dissapear. I do not want to live in this environment. Our children/grandchildren can currently play freely in green open areas. They will be gone forever.

Yes

Representation ID: 96483

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jeremy bradbeer

No further comment

Yes

Representation ID: 96573

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Shipston Town Council

In 2.3 should have had more emphasis made with words such ‘only’ and ‘not accepting any other sites’ italicised and bold.

No

Representation ID: 96597

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs G Wood

The language used to describe the task is not sufficiently plain english as to be suited to a large proportion of local residents and target audience who would like to express their views. Moreover, the depth of content described in this chapter is not proportionate to the knowledge or understanding of said local residents. It is likely to appear overwhelming, demanding and, to many, beyond their capability. Thus it is likely to deter them from responding.

No

Representation ID: 96599

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Griffin

I object to the proposals. The significant growth of 6,000 properties to the south of Leamington will see Barford, Tachbrook and Leamington virtually joined up. The current traffic volumes highlight the negative impact of overdevelopment of the area. The approach into Leamington is comprimised .Traffic delays make it an unpleasant place to visit/live. The impact on Warwick Hospital cannot cope with the demands placed upon it(forcing closeure January 25) is a concern. Village life in Barford will never be the same again. The additional homes proposed in Barford brings more traffic and the school and roads are unable to cope.

Yes

Representation ID: 96601

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Holland

Space at present so where build more with shortage of Dentists.
And last of all roads with all the extra homes and businesses you will be massively increasing traffic and pollution.
We need to be more efficient in this country and by taking land away to build on so less farming land less food for the country.

Other

Representation ID: 96626

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Slatem

I do not support the B1 proposed site because the distruption to access into Warwick would affect our area greatly. The A4177 is a major single carriageway truck road. It can not be wided or improved for the potential new volume of traffic. The other main route, Warwick road, would also be greatly affected. I would say access roads to the south of Leamington would be more suitable and therefore would support their development .

No

Representation ID: 96631

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Phil Reynolds

It’s concerning how the proposal shows no recognition of brownfield sites that could be build upon rather than ripping up the green belt and putting in a ridiculous number of new houses. Current infrastructure cannot cope and there is no acknowledgement of this. Rather, we will have to accept more traffic, more demand for already overwhelmed medical and school facilities in the area.

Yes

Representation ID: 96738

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Alcester Town Council

Alcester Town Council, Arrow with Weethley Parish Council, Kinwarton Parish Council, Wixford Parish Council and Great Alne Parish Council (together referred to as Alcester Parishes Group or ‘APG’) supports the consultation process and encourages community participation. It is important that smaller communities are able to access this very detailed information to enable them to make an informed response.

APG considers that the on-line consultation portal has been difficult for councils and residents to use and we believe this has been an obstacle to feedback.

No

Representation ID: 96830

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Jeffery

This document is not user-friendly for the layman.
Residents directly affected by this plan should have been informed directly.
In correct information on the proposed BW site map, ie property NOT put forward for development coloured in amber on the map, should have been corrected when SDC were informed but even after contacting them more than once this still has not been done.

No

Representation ID: 96881

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian Millard

. I cannot see how further development in Great Alne is appropriate. All sites have challenging & problematic access to them & additional infrastructure will only add to the flooding problems in the village. We are already cut off a few times every year & this can only make that worse. We are already dealing with a 160 unit development at Great Alne Park and limited pedestrian access to new sites is also of concern

Yes

Representation ID: 97013

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Victoria Alcock

Yes I support the proposals

No

Representation ID: 97131

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Carl Holloway

By not leafleting all households you are significantly reducing awareness of this scheme. Furthermore by using a convoluted portal as the primary means for collating feedback, you are adding significant friction into the feedback process and discriminating against those who are not tech savvy, such as the elderly. Highly disappointing.

No

Representation ID: 97766

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Gary Jeffery

Notification of the Plan and proposals for settlement sites should have been given directly to specifically affected residents of which I am one. My land at Pasture Barn Cottage, CV37 0ER is totally surrounded by land which has been put forward for the development in BW. Furthermore, my land is shown on the map indicating the proposed settlement at BW as having been put forward. IT HAS NOT. I have contacted SWLP to formally request that an appropriate amendment be made to the map but to date this has not happened. The document is not user-friendly for the layman.

No

Representation ID: 98001

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Mr John Williams

N/A

No

Representation ID: 98070

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Anna Inman

The proposed development on site B1 poses significant threats to the Green Belt, local agriculture, traffic conditions, recreational activities, wildlife, and the landscape. I urge the planners to reconsider this proposal in light of these substantial concerns. My main concerns are:
•The proposed development is located within the Green Belt. Developing this site would undermine the Green Belt principles and set a precedent for further encroachment into protected areas.
•The development would significantly increase traffic, leading to congestion. This would increase pollution and noise
•Hatton is home to a variety of wildlife. The development would fragment habitats and threaten them

Yes

Representation ID: 98127

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Cain

No comment

No

Representation ID: 98150

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr David Adams

The proposals for SG17 are unacceptable.
Sewage facilities are already overstretched, some areas are subject to regular flooding.
Schools are full, GP service is struggling to cope, the hospital re-opening is proposed with reduced services.
Very long journey to hospital 2 hours on buses.
No local employment opportunities, massive increase in car jouneys
Promises to provide facilities eg sports fields for previous development have not been sustained.
Bank is to close, fire station has been removed, no police station.
Removal of Recycling Centre for houses, more fly tipping, more car jouneys
Limited parking for extra cars.

Yes

Representation ID: 98151

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Tonkin

N A

No

Representation ID: 98166

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sue Thomas

I am completely against a new housing estate of such magnitude it will be a small town taking over the countryside effecting wildlife and road links will not support the extra traffic . Far too large a development. What are you thinking ???

No

Representation ID: 98189

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: MR DENIS BARNFIELD

Infrastructure is lacking, particularly in regards roads, pavements increased access to services etc.
Biodiversity is threatened
Concerned about continuous ribbon development between Lapworth/Hatton/Warwick

Other

Representation ID: 98191

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Holly Farm Business Park

Agent: The Tyler Parkes Partnership Ltd

* A single local plan should be produced, rather than a 2-part plan, to provide certainty.
* There is no timescale for Part 2.
* Support for the 25 year time horizon but, given the lengthy timescale for new settlements to come forward the immediately available land at HFBP should be brought forward to meet the shortfall of non-strategic employment land.
* Given the sifting out of the 2 previously submitted Call for Site submissions these are reattached for reconsideration.

No

Representation ID: 98216

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Woodward

N/a

No

Representation ID: 98221

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Ms Belinda Hay

I don't believe green spaces should be sacrificed before all other options to provide housing are exhausted.

No

Representation ID: 98286

Received: 06/03/2025

Respondent: Brailes Hill Farm

The following response to the Overarching Principles and Strategic Objectives for the SWLP will demonstrate that SG17, including the Fell Mill sites (148 & 747) fail to meet the above requirements and those of the SWLP.

I have sent in a longer document on email to swlp@warwickdc.gov.uk